Systems Modeling Language (SysML)3rd Revised OMG Submission

SysML Partnerswww.sysml.org

2 February 2005

2

AgendaOverviewChanges since v. 0.85INCOSE IW review feedbackSubmission specificsTechnical issues

Overview

4

SysML PartnersInformal partnership of modeling tool users, vendors, and government agencies

organized in May 2003 to respond to UML for Systems Engineering RFP (OMG doc# ad/03-03-41)

CharterThe SysML Partners are collaborating to define a modeling language for systems engineering applications, called Systems Modeling Language (SysML). SysML will customize UML 2 to support the specification, analysis, design, verification and validation of a broad range of complex systems

5

SysML PartnersPartners

IndustryAmerican Systems, BAE SYSTEMS, Boeing, Deere & Company, EADS Astrium, Eurostep, Israel Aircraft Industries, Lockheed Martin, Motorola, Northrop Grumman, oose.de, Raytheon, THALES

GovernmentDoD/OSD, NASA/JPL, NIST

VendorsArtisan, Ceira, EmbeddedPlus, Gentleware, IBM, I-Logix, PivotPoint Technology, Popkin, Project Technology, 3SL, Telelogic, Vitech

OrganizationsINCOSE

LiaisonsAP-233, CCSDS, EAST, INCOSE, Rosetta

6

SysML MilestonesUML for SE RFP issued – 28 March 2003Kickoff meeting – 6 May 2003Overview presentation to OMG ADTF – 27 Oct. 2003Initial draft submitted to OMG – 12 Jan. 2004INCOSE Review – 25-26 Jan. 2004INCOSE Review – 25 May 2004Revised submission to OMG – 2 Aug. 20042nd Revised submission to OMG – 11 Oct. 20043rd Revised submission to OMG – 10 Jan. 2005INCOSE Review – 29-30 Jan. 2005OMG technology adoption – H2 2005

7

SysML v. 0.9 is a Critical Milestone3rd revised submission to OMG

doc# ad/05-01-03Core systems engineering diagrams are stabilizingSeveral vendors have begun H1 2005 prototype efforts

Artisan, EmbeddedPlus, I-Logix, Telelogicothers TBA

Public discussion list and feedback page launched

SysMLforum@googlegroups.comwww.SysML.org/feedback.htm

8

Requirements SummaryStructure

e.g., system hierarchy, interconnectionBehavior

e.g., function-based behavior, state-based behaviorProperties

e.g., parametric models, time property Requirements

e.g., requirements hierarchy, traceabilityVerification

e.g., test cases, verification resultsOther

e.g., trade studies

9

UML 2 Reuse

10

SysML Diagram Taxonomy

Derived from UML 2 Derived from UML 2 Composite StructureComposite Structure

11

SysML Specification OutlinePrefacePart I - IntroductionPart II – Structural Constructs

ClassesAssembliesParametrics

Part III – Behavioral ConstructsActivitiesInteractionsState MachinesUse Cases

Part IV – Cross Cutting ConstructsAllocationsAuxiliary ConstructsRequirementsProfiles *

AppendicesDiagramsSample ProblemSpecialized UsagesModel LibrariesRequirements TraceabilityISO AP-233 AlignmentXMI

Change Summary

13

Changes from SysML v. 0.85Specification consistently defined in terms of UML2 stereotypes

most noticeable in ActivitiesRefinement of Assembly semantics and notationRequirement defined as stereotype of class

relationships clarifiedComplexity of Allocations reduced Refinement of Stereotype notation Interaction Overview diagrams no longer required Significant editing to improve readability and consistency

INCOSE International Workshop (29-30 Jan. 05) Recommendations

15

INCOSE IW RecommendationsImprove SysML tutorial

emphasize Core diagrams and drive with Requirements diagramsreplace UML-specific definitions with domain-specific explanationspresent update at INCOSE Symposium (MDSD plenary)

Increase readability of SysML specification for engineers and tool vendors

replace UML-specific definitions with domain-specific explanationsinclude a domain metamodel

Include a model library for Requirement taxonomyinclude MeasureOfEffectiveness (MOE; properties: weight, optimizationDirection)MOE may also include a complementary Parametric construct to effect MOE constraints

16

INCOSE IW Recommendations (cont’d)

Include a model library for Assemblies that includes PhysicalAssembly (properties: supplier, modelNumber, serialNumber, lotNumber)Harmonize concepts, constructs, and usage examples for Allocations

make implicit Allocations explicittest usability of multiple UI options via vendor prototypes

Encourage and promote vendor SysML prototypes at INCOSE Symposium vendor exhibits

17

Submission SpecificsRequirements (RFP sections 6.5-6.6)

submission satisfies most mandatory requirements and many section 6.6 optional requirementssummary provided in Appendix E

Proof of concept (RFP section 4.8)in process of being validated by prototypes from multiple vendors

Other verification & validationstrict reuse of UML 2 Superstructurereviewed by INCOSE and AP-233 systems engineering expertsreviewed by 28 SysML Partner organizations and their customers

18

Submission Specifics (cont’d)

Copyrights and TrademarksBSD-style open source licensecurrently 22 copyright holders

6 OMG Submitters; 7 non-OMGwill update for final submission

SysML and SysML logo not usable as trademarksOMG should consider rebranding (e.g., “OMG SysML”)

ComplianceSummarized in Section 2

Changes to OMG adopted specificationsRevisions to UML 2 Superstructure Profiles will likely be required (see Technical Issues)

19

Technical IssuesVendor issues related to implementation and usability will be prioritized during prototype phaseChanges to UML 2 Profiles will be required

see Proposed Changes to UML 2 Stereotypes

Wrap Up

21

SummarySysML v. 0.9 is a critical milestone

vendor prototypes will provide valuable usability feedbackSysML addresses UML for SE RFP requirements

address additional requirements in v1.1 and 2.0SysML extensively reuses and extends a relatively small subset of UML 2 Constructive recommendations from INCOSE IW feedback will be incorporated to improve specificationOMG feedback is solicited regarding proposal in general, and Profiles proposal in particularPlan to present final revised submission in June 2005

22

Further InfoSysML Forum

www.SysML.orgincludes Feedback page

SysML Forum discussion groupmailto:SysMLforum@googlegroups.com

ChairsCris Kobryn

cris.kobryn@sysml.org; cris.kobryn@telelogic.comSandy Friedenthal

sanford.friedenthal@sysml.org; sanford.friedenthal@lmco.com