User Tools

Site Tools


mbse:sysml_stk_iw2011

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
mbse:sysml_stk_iw2011 [2011/01/26 19:00]
bjorncole
mbse:sysml_stk_iw2011 [2011/01/31 14:26] (current)
bjorncole
Line 1: Line 1:
-Agenda for Joint Challenge Team session:+The afternoon ​session ​aims to focus on specific STK / SysML integration issues. ​ For example:
  
-//<This agenda is in draft form>//​ +  ​**A truly standard way to define a reference ​frame within ​SysML** 
- +  * **Time** 
-There are two alternative proposals for the agenda: +  * **Tracing ​system model version ​to feed analysis ​version back to populate ​system model**
- +
-We would like to winnow down the potential topics for further action by the Challenge Team that have arisen through recent experiences in both the Space Systems and Telescope Challenge Teams as their models become larger and more mature. ​ The common thread is that of handling scale. +
- +
-Potential topics: +
- +
-  ​Finding common issues ​to develop standard approaches for (e.g. moving between multiple local reference ​frames) +
-  * Matching ​SysML profiles to Ontologies +
-  ​Coordinating system model and domain analysis via Ontology +
-  ​Issues of evolution: merging, branching, configuration control, etc. +
-  * Variant modeling +
-  ​Property propagation (e.g., everything shall be painted black) +
-  * Version tracking of interchanges - that is, what version of the system model was used in what version ​of the  ​analysis ​model that created the value currently in the system model+
-  ​Zooming between levels of detail +
-  ​Defining a navigation scheme for large models +
- +
-An alternative is to focus on specific STK / SysML integration issues. ​ For example: +
- +
-  * A truly standard way to define a reference frame within SysML+
   * Any markup on typical models that is missing that appears to be required to populate STK   * Any markup on typical models that is missing that appears to be required to populate STK
-  * Advertising STK's analysis service to SysML with available handles to connect with +  ​* **What about time?  Do we need it to truly interface Scenarios to STK?  What might we need?** 
-  * Importing STK Scenarios and trajectories into the SysML model+  * **Advertising STK's analysis service to SysML with available handles to connect with** 
 +* Importing STK Scenarios and trajectories into the SysML model
  
 We may knock down one, maybe two of the above STK / SysML issues in the hour, so we will have to choose. We may knock down one, maybe two of the above STK / SysML issues in the hour, so we will have to choose.
mbse/sysml_stk_iw2011.1296086432.txt.gz · Last modified: 2011/01/26 19:00 by bjorncole