Mailing list: email@example.com
Working Group Objectives:
WG Members: Hedley Apperly, Manas Bajaj, Yves Bernard, Roger Burkhart, Hans Peter de Koning, Chris Delp, Josh Feingold, Sandy Friedenthal(WG Lead), Laura Hart, Nerijus Jankevicius, Uwe Kaufmann, Christian Muggeo, Eldad Palachi, Michael Pfenning, Marc Sarrel, Chris Schreiber, Rick Steiner, John Watson, Ron Williamson
Based on the above capabilities and effectiveness measures, some of the preliminary driving requirements for the next-generation system modeling language and tools have been identified as follows:
1. The next-generation modeling language must express the core systems engineering concepts. This requires definition of a robust data model that reflects these concepts. The requirements that drove SysML are heavily based on the original Systems Engineering Conceptual Model that was jointly developed by the INCOSE/OMG/AP233 requirements team. This model will be revisited in light of what has been learned over the last several years, and refined as necessary to express the core systems engineering concepts.
2. The next-generation modeling language must include precise semantics that avoid ambiguity and enable a concise representation of the concepts. SysML currently leverages the UML metamodel for much of its semantic foundations. The language must be based on a well-specified logical formalism that can leverage the model for a broad range of analysis and model checking. This includes the ability to validate that the model is logically consistent, and the ability to answer questions such as the impact of a requirement or design change, or the assessment of how a failure could propagate through a system. The language and tools must also integrate with a diverse range of equation solvers and execution environments that incorporate the capture of quantitative data.
3. The next-generation modeling language and tools must provide flexible and rich visualization and reporting capabilities to support a broad range of model users. SysML currently includes concepts for view and viewpoint. Tool vendors and end users have been able to apply this capability to query the model and provide flexible reporting capability. The next generation must extend this capability with advanced visualization techniques that include dynamic zoom, filtering, and traversal of model relationships, and visualizing the dynamic behavior of a system, such as provided by simulations. The modeling language must also support symbol libraries that extend well beyond the current SysML notations. It is also expected that the modeling environment will provide a simplified web interface to dynamically view the model from a diverse set of viewpoints.
4. The next-generation modeling language and tools must enable much more intuitive and efficient model construction. It often requires several clicks to capture a core concept in a model. More streamlined and efficient user interfaces could reduce the time and effort to build and maintain a model. The ability to repeat common modeling patterns with reduced user input (e.g., table-based entry) is another capability to increase modeling productivity and understanding.
5. The next-generation modeling language and tools must support MBSE in the broader context of Model-Based Engineering (MBE), where the models and tools are fully integrated across discipline-specific engineering tools, including hardware and software design, analysis and simulation, and verification. All these model-based tools working together establish an environment for engineering the total system.
6. The next-generation modeling language must provide a standard application programming interface (API) to provide dynamic access to the model, while providing appropriate access controls. It should also integrate with emerging platforms for managing and integrating model-based content, such as Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration (OSLC), which is based on linked data and semantic web technology, and the Functional Mockup Interface (FMI), which provides model exchange and co-simulation capability for executable behavior models. Model transformation is another core capability of the SME, by providing the ability to translate from one modeling language to another.
7. The next-generation modeling language must be capable of being managed in a heterogeneous and distributed modeling environment. The ability to manage change to the model, where multiple users are collaborating on a single model, is challenging enough. This basic capability requires extensive branch and merge capability that includes effective means for evaluating and integrating changes from multiple users, while maintaining a history of all changes. These challenges are magnified when multiple models and tools are all part of the collaboration. The ability to integrate with Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) environments, which enable versioning, configuration, and variant management, is a fundamental SME requirement.
8. The next-generation modeling language and tools must enable efficient and intuitive use by a broad range of users with diverse skills. This imposes requirements on model precision, model construction, model visualization, model management, and several other aspects of the language and tools. As noted previously, the learning curve for the SysML language and tools is quite steep. Usability must be a primary consideration for the next-generation modeling language and tools.
9. The next-generation modeling language and tools must be highly adaptable and customizable to multiple application domains. This implies that the modeling language must be extensible to address domain-specific concepts, and that the modeling tools provide flexible means for the user to enter, analyze, and visualize model data in ways that are meaningful to each domain. In addition, the SME must accommodate customization that is performed in a standard and rigorous way.
10. To protect investments made by organizations, the next-generation modeling languages must support the migration of existing models with minimum information loss. Models must also be capable of being stored in neutral formats that can be retained for future access.
11. The next-generation modeling language and tools must enable evolution of the above capabilities to take advantage of on-going advances in technologies, concepts, methods, and theories. Its architecture must be modular and extensible and support the definition of conformance levels that satisfy requirements of different applications.
Call Notes July 29th, 2015
Call Notes July 15th, 2015
Call Notes April 14th, 2015
SE DSIG Notes from Reston 2015 meeting
Call Notes January 6th, 2015
Notes from Santa Clara meeting, Dec. 2014
Call Notes November 11th, 2014
Call Notes October 28th, 2014
Call Notes October 7th, 2014
Call Notes August 5th, 2014
Call Notes July 30th, 2014
Call Notes July 15th, 2014
Call Notes May 27th, 2014
Call Notes May 13th, 2014
Call Notes April 29th, 2014
Call Notes April 22nd, 2014
Call Notes April 8th, 2014
Call Notes April 1st, 2014
Call notes Feb. 25th, 2014
Call notes Feb. 14th, 2014
SE DSIG Notes from Santa Clara 2014 meeting
Cambridge Sep 2015 Meeting Presentations
La Jolla Dec 2015 Meeting Presentations
Reston Mar 2016 Meeting Presentations
Orlando June 2016 Meeting Presentations
Chicago September 2016 Meeting Presentations
UML for SE RFP from 2003
SysML Assessment and Roadmap Approach at Reston March 2014 SE DSIG (Sandy and Yves)
OMG RFI Final Report from 2010
OMG SysML Requirements Traceability
SysML Assessment Roadmap (Sandy)
Model Based Systems Engineering Use Cases (John)
Adoption issues approach (Uwe)
Roadmap Mindmap (Yves and Sandy)
se_use_cases_working_copy_9-14-2014_r2.docx SysML Traceability Matrix following the call on April 29, 2014
Evaluation criteria presented by Sandy on May 13, 2014
model based engineering environment presented by Chris Delp on May 13, 2014
Evaluation criteria updated on May 27, 2014 call
Agenda for Boston OMG meeting on June 17, 2014
Model Based SE Use Cases, OMG Technical Conference, Boston MA, June 17, 2014 (John)
Model Based Engineering Environment for MBSE, Boston MA, June 17, 2014 (Chris)
SysML Adoption Issues, Boston MA, June 17, 2014 (Uwe)
SysML RFI 2009 Conclusions, Boston MA, June 17, 2014 (Rick)
Boston Meeting June 2014 Intro and Results (Sandy)
SE use case approach and roadmap activity (John)
System Modeling Environment Concept (Sandy)
Systems Engineering Use Case Document Sept 14,2014 (John)
Systems Engineering Use Case Model Sept 14,2014 (John)
System Modeling Assessment Roadmap Overview Status Austin 2014
Mapping conceptual architecture to Jazz (Eldad)
Systems Engineering Use Case Document Nov 29,2014 (John)
SysML RFP 2 Planning Summary from Long Beach Dec. 2014 (Sandy)
March 2015 SE DSIG Meeting notes
June 2015 SE DSIG SysML 2 Meeting notes
Layered architecture - Sandy
Berlin June 2015 Technical Meeting
Sandy and Roger's INCOSE Insight article on Evolving SysML and the System Modeling Environment (August 2015)
Model Construction Concept (Ron W.)
Example Services Specification-happerly-2016-01-06