Issue 16608: sentence introduced in §9.1 by the resolution to issue #16280 is confusing (sysml-rtf) Source: EADS (Mr. Yves Bernard, yves.bernard(at)airbus.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The following sentence introduced in §9.1 by the resolution to issue #16280 is confusing: "Default compatibility rules are defined for connecting blocks used in composite structure, including parts and ports [...]" since it is not "blocks" (SysML sense), which are not connectable elements, that are connected in composite structure but parts and ports. In addition the rules we are speaking about deal with "matching/mapping" (i.e. routing) rather than with "compatibility" since one can have several possible solutions (mapping) to connect two compatible ports. I suggest replacing this sentence by the following one: "Default matching rules are defined for connecting parts or ports in composite structure but specific mappings can be specified thanks to association blocks". Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: June 28, 2011: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: "BERNARD, Yves" To: "Juergen Boldt (juergen@omg.org)" CC: "Sysml-Rtf (sysml-rtf@omg.org)" Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:42:22 +0200 Subject: [SysML v1.3 RTF] new SysML issue Thread-Topic: [SysML v1.3 RTF] new SysML issue Thread-Index: Acw1d648ju/kyn0iSSKY6M6gPWaFlA== Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US Juergen, Would you please create a new SysML issue: Title: Confusing owning block terminology Description: The following sentence introduced in §9.1 by the resolution to issue #16280 is confusing: "Default compatibility rules are defined for connecting blocks used in composite structure, including parts and ports [...]" since it is not "blocks" (SysML sense), which are not connectable elements, that are connected in composite structure but parts and ports. In addition the rules we are speaking about deal with "matching/mapping" (i.e. routing) rather than with "compatibility" since one can have several possible solutions (mapping) to connect two compatible ports. I suggest replacing this sentence by the following one: "Default matching rules are defined for connecting parts or ports in composite structure but specific mappings can be specified thanks to association blocks". Sandy, Conrad, This issue is intended to fill the .TBD. one in Ballot 4 Thanks, Yves BERNARD Avionics Engineering Research Leader EADS - AIRBUS Operations S.A.S EYYA - Avionics & Simulation Products Phone: 33 (0)5 67 19 45 32 Fax: 33 (0)5 61 93 08 83 The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. From: "Bock, Conrad" To: "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:25:55 -0500 Subject: RE: Proposed Updates to draft ballot 1, 16608 Thread-Topic: Proposed Updates to draft ballot 1, 16608 Thread-Index: AczplnmEila91YjjQwuhe2WjLGfRGgAKltPAAC7qFfA= Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Sandy, > As for using IBD instead of composite structure in 16608, I am a > little hesitant to specify a concrete diagram - I don't think it is a > good practice to relate to diagrams since SysML can be extended with > DSLs that might also include connectors and parts and the same rule > would apply there as well. Composite structure is a term used in UML > and I think it well defined to most spec readers. The issue as filed is about the use of the word "block", rather than "composite structure", which is the context for the whole sentence. Perhaps word-smithing in general can't really be "easily disposed", but the resolution addresses the issue as filed, so I think it's OK. Conrad From: "Bock, Conrad" To: "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:27:38 -0500 Subject: RE: Proposed Updates to draft ballot 1, 16608 Thread-Topic: Proposed Updates to draft ballot 1, 16608 Thread-Index: AczplnmEila91YjjQwuhe2WjLGfRGgAKltPAAC7qFfA= Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Eldad, > And for 16608, just remove "composite structures," from the revised > text - Sandy found that this term is confusing and that we can do > without it. You can't connect block usages outside of composite structure. I think the text addresses the issue as filed, see below. Conrad Sandy, > As for using IBD instead of composite structure in 16608, I am a > little hesitant to specify a concrete diagram - I don't think it is a > good practice to relate to diagrams since SysML can be extended with > DSLs that might also include connectors and parts and the same rule > would apply there as well. Composite structure is a term used in UML > and I think it well defined to most spec readers. The issue as filed is about the use of the word "block", rather than "composite structure", which is the context for the whole sentence. Perhaps word-smithing in general can't really be "easily disposed", but the resolution addresses the issue as filed, so I think it's OK. Conrad From: "Bock, Conrad" To: "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:30:55 -0500 Subject: RE: Proposed Updates to draft ballot 1, 16608, Sandy's rec Thread-Topic: Proposed Updates to draft ballot 1, 16608, Sandy's rec Thread-Index: AczplnmEila91YjjQwuhe2WjLGfRGgAKltPAAC7qFfA= Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US P.S. Sorry, just noticed Sandy's recommendation: Please change the reference from 'composite structures' to 'internal block diagrams' based on standard SysML terminology. which makes sense. Conrad Eldad, > And for 16608, just remove "composite structures," from the revised > text - Sandy found that this term is confusing and that we can do > without it. You can't connect block usages outside of composite structure. I think the text addresses the issue as filed, see below. Conrad Sandy, > As for using IBD instead of composite structure in 16608, I am a > little hesitant to specify a concrete diagram - I don't think it is a > good practice to relate to diagrams since SysML can be extended with > DSLs that might also include connectors and parts and the same rule > would apply there as well. Composite structure is a term used in UML > and I think it well defined to most spec readers. The issue as filed is about the use of the word "block", rather than "composite structure", which is the context for the whole sentence. Perhaps word-smithing in general can't really be "easily disposed", but the resolution addresses the issue as filed, so I think it's OK. Conrad