Issue 17246: Part 1 of the specification (sysml-rtf) Source: Lockheed Martin (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, michael_chonoles2(at)omg.org) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: In Part 1, there is a paragraph that says, in the context of describing the origins of SysML Currently it is common practice for systems engineers to use a wide range of modeling languages, tools, and techniques on large systems projects. In a manner similar to how UML unified the modeling languages used in the software industry, SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers. This is not currently correct. It should be changed to. It was then common practice for systems engineers to use a wide range of modeling languages, tools, and techniques on large systems projects. In a manner similar to how UML unified the modeling languages used in the software industry, SysML has started to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: March 19, 2012: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: "Chonoles, Michael J" Subject: Issue against SysML To: "sysml-rtf@omg.org" In Part 1, there is a paragraph that says, in the context of describing the origins of SysML Currently it is common practice for systems engineers to use a wide range of modeling languages, tools, and techniques on large systems projects. In a manner similar to how UML unified the modeling languages used in the software industry, SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers. This is not currently correct. It should be changed to. It was then common practice for systems engineers to use a wide range of modeling languages, tools, and techniques on large systems projects. In a manner similar to how UML unified the modeling languages used in the software industry, SysML has started to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers. Michael Chonoles Michael Jesse Chonoles Principal Member of Engineering Staff LM co-POC to OMG / coChair OMG ADTF Lockheed Martin, MS2 Moorestown, NJ 08057 199 Borton Landing Road, Bldg 780, 2nd Fl, C408 Telephones: Work 856-359-1383 Cell: 267-315-2410 Home and Work 610-644-8404 Fax: 215-790-2976 Co-author: UML 2 For Dummies michael.j.chonoles@lmco.com mjchonoles@yahoo.com From: "Natale, Bob" To: "Chonoles, Michael J" Subject: RE: Issue against SysML Hi Michael, I agree with the general thrust of your comment but would change your revision in two ways: - .It was then common practice. -> .It has been common practice. - .SysML has started to unify. -> .SysML has the potential to unify. Cheers, BobN From: Chonoles, Michael J [mailto:michael.j.chonoles@lmco.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 4:08 PM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue against SysML In Part 1, there is a paragraph that says, in the context of describing the origins of SysML Currently it is common practice for systems engineers to use a wide range of modeling languages, tools, and techniques on large systems projects. In a manner similar to how UML unified the modeling languages used in the software industry, SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers. This is not currently correct. It should be changed to. It was then common practice for systems engineers to use a wide range of modeling languages, tools, and techniques on large systems projects. In a manner similar to how UML unified the modeling languages used in the software industry, SysML has started to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers. Michael Chonoles Michael Jesse Chonoles Principal Member of Engineering Staff LM co-POC to OMG / coChair OMG ADTF Lockheed Martin, MS2 Moorestown, NJ 08057 199 Borton Landing Road, Bldg 780, 2nd Fl, C408 Telephones: Work 856-359-1383 Cell: 267-315-2410 Home and Work 610-644-8404 Fax: 215-790-2976 Co-author: UML 2 For Dummies michael.j.chonoles@lmco.com mjchonoles@yahoo.com From: Burkhart Roger M To: Sanford Friedenthal , "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:53:58 -0500 Subject: RE: Comments and Proposed Updates to: draft ballot 2 available for discussion through Friday, August 3, 2012 Thread-Topic: Comments and Proposed Updates to: draft ballot 2 available for discussion through Friday, August 3, 2012 Thread-Index: Ac1mtZGhFXy2219yTAO8Wn3juoG66gAi/mMgAEpGC/AAALxcEA== Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.7.7855,1.0.260,0.0.0000 definitions=2012-07-22_06:2012-07-20,2012-07-22,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.7.7855,1.0.260,0.0.0000 definitions=2012-07-22_06:2012-07-20,2012-07-22,1970-01-01 signatures=0 Sandy-- On Issue 17246, my resolution had already proposed to keep the current first sentence of the paragraph in question ("It is common practice for systems engineers to use a wide range of modeling languages, tools, and techniques on large systems projects.") I'm OK with your new version, however, including making the first sentence for engineers in general, and your single sentence to follow ("As a general purpose modeling language, SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline and domain specific modeling languages.") On Issue 17307, thanks for the catch that my editing instructions hadn't removed the old sentence now subsumed by the new. I'll fix it in the next update. On Issue 15075 ("Including Property Notation for Redefinition and Subsetting"), I didn't try to address it in this ballot. This ballot was to include only resolutions we expect to be non-controversial, and I don't know whether that one will be or not. I'd prefer to go one step at a time, and postpone any further consideration on that additional issue until after we finish this ballot. --Roger From: Sanford Friedenthal [mailto:safriedenthal@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 9:23 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Comments and Proposed Updates to: draft ballot 2 available for discussion through Friday, August 3, 2012 SysML RTF I have included the following comments and proposed updates to the resolutions per below. Thanks. Sandy Issue 17246 Part 1, 4th paragraph Current text: It is common practice for systems engineers to use a wide range of modeling languages, tools, and techniques on large systems projects. In a manner similar to how UML unified the modeling languages used in the software industry, SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers. Text in proposed resolution: The SysML language is intended to provide a common systems engineering context which can be integrated with the diverse modeling languages used by systems engineers. Contents of additional modeling languages, tools, and techniques can be mapped into a SysML systems model for use across the systems development life cycle. Suggested modified text in proposed resolution: (modifications in strikethrough and yellow highlighted text) It is common practice for systems engineers to use a wide range of modeling languages, tools, and techniques on large systems projects. As a general purpose modeling language, SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline and domain specific modeling languages. In a manner similar to how UML unified the modeling languages used in the software industry, SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers. Issue 17307 In addition to the proposed text change, suggest you also delete the sentence in the current text that is highlighted below since it is subsumed in the proposed modified text. Current text: A property typed by a SysML Block that has composite aggregation is classified as a part property, except for the special case of a constraint property. Constraint properties are further defined in Clause 10, .Constraint Blocks.. A port is another category of property, as further defined in Clause 9, .Ports and Flows.. Suggested modified text in proposed resolution: (modifications in strikethrough and yellow highlighted text) A property typed by a SysML Block that has composite aggregation is classified as a part property, except for the special cases of ports and constraint properties. Ports are further defined in Clause 9, .Ports and Flows,. and constraint properties are further defined in Clause 10, .Constraint Blocks.. A port is another category of property, as further defined in Clause 9, .Ports and Flows. Issue 17120 While we address the addition of the derived property notation to blocks, this seems like a good time to address another somewhat related issue 25075 to include redefinition and subsetting in the table. If it is too late to address in this ballot, please address .Issue 15075: Including Property Notation for Redefinition and Subsetting. in next ballot. Issue 17250 Suggest we add the operations label to the compartment to be consistent with the block notation in Table 8.2.1. Although it may be ok not to include a compartment label, we should encourage consistent use of the notation in the specification to avoid confusion. Issue 13153 I don.t understand the motivation for adding an additional action stereotype called ReadExecution. Shouldn.t this be something that should be done in UML? Issue 16406 The resolution of this issue on the rate stereotype refers to Issue 13153. I don.t see how the proposed resolution to Issue 13153 addresses this issue. Issue 15302 The create message should be a dashed line in the figure as indicated in the statement of the issue. Issue 17445 This resolution proposes adding some existing state machine notation to the diagram tables. Adding the composite notation is good since this is pretty intuitive and standard. I am questioning whether adding the connection point reference notation (via .)is sufficiently used and intuitive to warrant adding to SysML notation tables. Can we include this separately so it can be voted on separately. From: Burkhart Roger M [mailto:BurkhartRogerM@JohnDeere.com] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 4:24 PM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: draft ballot 2 available for discussion through Friday, August 3, 2012 A draft Ballot 2 is available for review and discussion on the SysML 1.4 RTF wiki at http://www.omg.org/members/sysml-rtf-wiki. (Click on the Ballot 2 link.) Ballot 2 will be open for discussion through Friday, August 3, 2012. The normal two-week voting period will then begin by Monday, August 6. Following are ballot review instructions which appear at the bottom of the ballot page: The review period is currently open. Please download the PDF file above to review the detail of the proposed resolutions, which will be frozen at the start of voting. If you have any concerns or questions about any of the proposed resolutions, please send a message to the sysml-rtf@omg.org mailing list. This ballot is intended to continue our cleanup of (relatively) easily disposed issues, picking up where ballot 1 left off. These resolutions are intended to be noncontroversial. If significant debate or discussion is raised during the review period, we will likely remove those resolutions from ballot 2 prior to voting. A review and discussion of this ballot will occur on the regularly scheduled RTF telecon on Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 10:00 ET, and in any subsequent telecons as required. Subject: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) X-KeepSent: A8DD8790:8F8BC3BD-C2257A4C:0022FF62; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: sysml-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Eldad Palachi Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:43:46 +0300 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML319/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 31/07/2012 09:43:41 x-cbid: 12073106-4966-0000-0000-0000031749D4 After an internal discussion we realized we do not accept the conclusion of the RTF that SysML is not unifying modeling languages and with the sentence: "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It is true that SysML could "be used with a set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." but in its current form it is unifying languages like Statemate and Core. Although it is true that SysML is not well suited for physical processes simulation we find it quite rich for analyzing requirements, describing system level processes, models and states, architectures, interactions, etc. So we believe that the resolution should be closer to what Michael has suggested in the description of the issue. We can add a sentence that says that SysML could be used with other discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages but in our perspective it does unify previous languages and it is not designed as general purpose language that just puts domain specific models into a system wide context. Eldad From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi , "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Thread-Topic: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Thread-Index: AQHNbugO9QJzq1J/ZkKb1GZxEbB8OpdC+JNA Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:19:27 +0000 Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.0.24] X-XWALL-BCKS: auto X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id q6V7JdJj023209 Eldad, I have different opionion (or I didn't understand your point). It is not the idea of SysML to replace discipline/domain-specific languages/tools like Statemate or Catia. Of course there is an overlap between those languages and SysML, but the intent is different. As a consequence I would put a focus on the capability of SysML to support interchange formats like XMI, STEP, ReqIF, and so on. And not to put a focus on increasing the capability for example to store geometric information in SysML. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:44 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) After an internal discussion we realized we do not accept the conclusion of the RTF that SysML is not unifying modeling languages and with the sentence: "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It is true that SysML could "be used with a set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." but in its current form it is unifying languages like Statemate and Core. Although it is true that SysML is not well suited for physical processes simulation we find it quite rich for analyzing requirements, describing system level processes, models and states, architectures, interactions, etc. So we believe that the resolution should be closer to what Michael has suggested in the description of the issue. We can add a sentence that says that SysML could be used with other discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages but in our perspective it does unify previous languages and it is not designed as general purpose language that just puts domain specific models into a system wide context. Eldad From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi , "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Thread-Topic: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Thread-Index: AQHNbugO9QJzq1J/ZkKb1GZxEbB8OpdC+JNA Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:19:27 +0000 Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.0.24] X-XWALL-BCKS: auto X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id q6V7JdJj023209 Eldad, I have different opionion (or I didn't understand your point). It is not the idea of SysML to replace discipline/domain-specific languages/tools like Statemate or Catia. Of course there is an overlap between those languages and SysML, but the intent is different. As a consequence I would put a focus on the capability of SysML to support interchange formats like XMI, STEP, ReqIF, and so on. And not to put a focus on increasing the capability for example to store geometric information in SysML. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:44 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) After an internal discussion we realized we do not accept the conclusion of the RTF that SysML is not unifying modeling languages and with the sentence: "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It is true that SysML could "be used with a set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." but in its current form it is unifying languages like Statemate and Core. Although it is true that SysML is not well suited for physical processes simulation we find it quite rich for analyzing requirements, describing system level processes, models and states, architectures, interactions, etc. So we believe that the resolution should be closer to what Michael has suggested in the description of the issue. We can add a sentence that says that SysML could be used with other discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages but in our perspective it does unify previous languages and it is not designed as general purpose language that just puts domain specific models into a system wide context. Eldad Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) X-KeepSent: 070E0016:E55FC050-C2257A4C:002890E0; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eldad Palachi , "sysml-rtf@omg.org" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Eran Gery Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:32:02 +0300 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML319/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 31/07/2012 10:31:58 x-cbid: 12073107-6892-0000-0000-000002946F1E Tim, SysML is intended to replace many discrete description languages like Statemate and core. Obviously you will always find "hardliners" that will continue to use those languages for various reasons, from personal taste to SysML being more complex. That said, there is a difference between SysML and Modelica or Catia, which are really focusing on specific domains SysML is not intending to cover. So the reality is that - SysML is unifying/replacing a bunch of "older" discrete type description languages like SA/SD, Core, Statemate - SysML does not aim to cover every domain specific language for Systems Engineering and should properly interoperate with those. The resolution was sort of discounting the first role, emphasizing only the second. Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" , Date: 31/07/2012 10:20 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, I have different opionion (or I didn't understand your point). It is not the idea of SysML to replace discipline/domain-specific languages/tools like Statemate or Catia. Of course there is an overlap between those languages and SysML, but the intent is different. As a consequence I would put a focus on the capability of SysML to support interchange formats like XMI, STEP, ReqIF, and so on. And not to put a focus on increasing the capability for example to store geometric information in SysML. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:44 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) After an internal discussion we realized we do not accept the conclusion of the RTF that SysML is not unifying modeling languages and with the sentence: "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It is true that SysML could "be used with a set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." but in its current form it is unifying languages like Statemate and Core. Although it is true that SysML is not well suited for physical processes simulation we find it quite rich for analyzing requirements, describing system level processes, models and states, architectures, interactions, etc. So we believe that the resolution should be closer to what Michael has suggested in the description of the issue. We can add a sentence that says that SysML could be used with other discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages but in our perspective it does unify previous languages and it is not designed as general purpose language that just puts domain specific models into a system wide context. Eldad From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eran Gery CC: Eldad Palachi , "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Thread-Topic: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Thread-Index: AQHNbugO9QJzq1J/ZkKb1GZxEbB8OpdC+JNA///lPACAACUKQA== Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:51:36 +0000 Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.0.24] X-XWALL-BCKS: auto X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id q6V7pqf1024092 Eran, your response makes it much clearer for me. We must be careful to separate languages, methods and tools. I agree that SysML could replace the language part of "old" approaches like SA/SD or tools like Statemate. However I can't see the conflict with the statement "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It doesn't mention the aspect that SysML replaces or unifies other languages. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eran Gery [mailto:eran.gery@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:32 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eldad Palachi; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, SysML is intended to replace many discrete description languages like Statemate and core. Obviously you will always find "hardliners" that will continue to use those languages for various reasons, from personal taste to SysML being more complex. That said, there is a difference between SysML and Modelica or Catia, which are really focusing on specific domains SysML is not intending to cover. So the reality is that - SysML is unifying/replacing a bunch of "older" discrete type description languages like SA/SD, Core, Statemate - SysML does not aim to cover every domain specific language for Systems Engineering and should properly interoperate with those. The resolution was sort of discounting the first role, emphasizing only the second. Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" , Date: 31/07/2012 10:20 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, I have different opionion (or I didn't understand your point). It is not the idea of SysML to replace discipline/domain-specific languages/tools like Statemate or Catia. Of course there is an overlap between those languages and SysML, but the intent is different. As a consequence I would put a focus on the capability of SysML to support interchange formats like XMI, STEP, ReqIF, and so on. And not to put a focus on increasing the capability for example to store geometric information in SysML. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:44 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) After an internal discussion we realized we do not accept the conclusion of the RTF that SysML is not unifying modeling languages and with the sentence: "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It is true that SysML could "be used with a set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." but in its current form it is unifying languages like Statemate and Core. Although it is true that SysML is not well suited for physical processes simulation we find it quite rich for analyzing requirements, describing system level processes, models and states, architectures, interactions, etc. So we believe that the resolution should be closer to what Michael has suggested in the description of the issue. We can add a sentence that says that SysML could be used with other discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages but in our perspective it does unify previous languages and it is not designed as general purpose language that just puts domain specific models into a system wide context. Eldad Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) X-KeepSent: A3E58A44:8737E080-C2257A4C:002FC2B4; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eran Gery , "sysml-rtf@omg.org" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Eldad Palachi Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:05:36 +0300 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML319/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 31/07/2012 12:05:30 x-cbid: 12073109-0542-0000-0000-0000029C5ACD Tim, According to the current proposed resolution SysML is a general purpose language "intended to to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." While originally the spec says: "SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers." I don't think the intent of SysML has changed during the RTF. What's changed is that languages like statemate and core are used less and SysML is replacing them. I agree that SysML is not replacing Catia, Modelica or Simulink. We do not object to a statement that says that SysML could "be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." But the intent of SysML is still to be a general purpose modeling language for analysis, specification and design of complex multi-disciplinary systems (and not just providing context for domain specific models). Eldad From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: 31/07/2012 10:52 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eran, your response makes it much clearer for me. We must be careful to separate languages, methods and tools. I agree that SysML could replace the language part of "old" approaches like SA/SD or tools like Statemate. However I can't see the conflict with the statement "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It doesn't mention the aspect that SysML replaces or unifies other languages. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eran Gery [mailto:eran.gery@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:32 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eldad Palachi; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, SysML is intended to replace many discrete description languages like Statemate and core. Obviously you will always find "hardliners" that will continue to use those languages for various reasons, from personal taste to SysML being more complex. That said, there is a difference between SysML and Modelica or Catia, which are really focusing on specific domains SysML is not intending to cover. So the reality is that - SysML is unifying/replacing a bunch of "older" discrete type description languages like SA/SD, Core, Statemate - SysML does not aim to cover every domain specific language for Systems Engineering and should properly interoperate with those. The resolution was sort of discounting the first role, emphasizing only the second. Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" , Date: 31/07/2012 10:20 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, I have different opionion (or I didn't understand your point). It is not the idea of SysML to replace discipline/domain-specific languages/tools like Statemate or Catia. Of course there is an overlap between those languages and SysML, but the intent is different. As a consequence I would put a focus on the capability of SysML to support interchange formats like XMI, STEP, ReqIF, and so on. And not to put a focus on increasing the capability for example to store geometric information in SysML. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:44 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) After an internal discussion we realized we do not accept the conclusion of the RTF that SysML is not unifying modeling languages and with the sentence: "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It is true that SysML could "be used with a set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." but in its current form it is unifying languages like Statemate and Core. Although it is true that SysML is not well suited for physical processes simulation we find it quite rich for analyzing requirements, describing system level processes, models and states, architectures, interactions, etc. So we believe that the resolution should be closer to what Michael has suggested in the description of the issue. We can add a sentence that says that SysML could be used with other discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages but in our perspective it does unify previous languages and it is not designed as general purpose language that just puts domain specific models into a system wide context. Eldad Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) X-KeepSent: 111CD94C:D989FB6F-C2257A4C:0036AECB; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eldad Palachi , "sysml-rtf@omg.org" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Eran Gery Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:03:13 +0300 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML319/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 31/07/2012 13:03:10 x-cbid: 12073110-4966-0000-0000-00000317E40E Tim - We agree there is no conflict, but we need to be careful not to message that SysML has no value by itself without the other dsls. We should say "Sysml is a rich language that captures many aspects of systems design, but also fit for use with other domain specific languages". Thanks, Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: 31/07/2012 10:52 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eran, your response makes it much clearer for me. We must be careful to separate languages, methods and tools. I agree that SysML could replace the language part of "old" approaches like SA/SD or tools like Statemate. However I can't see the conflict with the statement "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It doesn't mention the aspect that SysML replaces or unifies other languages. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eran Gery [mailto:eran.gery@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:32 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eldad Palachi; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, SysML is intended to replace many discrete description languages like Statemate and core. Obviously you will always find "hardliners" that will continue to use those languages for various reasons, from personal taste to SysML being more complex. That said, there is a difference between SysML and Modelica or Catia, which are really focusing on specific domains SysML is not intending to cover. So the reality is that - SysML is unifying/replacing a bunch of "older" discrete type description languages like SA/SD, Core, Statemate - SysML does not aim to cover every domain specific language for Systems Engineering and should properly interoperate with those. The resolution was sort of discounting the first role, emphasizing only the second. Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" , Date: 31/07/2012 10:20 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, I have different opionion (or I didn't understand your point). It is not the idea of SysML to replace discipline/domain-specific languages/tools like Statemate or Catia. Of course there is an overlap between those languages and SysML, but the intent is different. As a consequence I would put a focus on the capability of SysML to support interchange formats like XMI, STEP, ReqIF, and so on. And not to put a focus on increasing the capability for example to store geometric information in SysML. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:44 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) After an internal discussion we realized we do not accept the conclusion of the RTF that SysML is not unifying modeling languages and with the sentence: "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It is true that SysML could "be used with a set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." but in its current form it is unifying languages like Statemate and Core. Although it is true that SysML is not well suited for physical processes simulation we find it quite rich for analyzing requirements, describing system level processes, models and states, architectures, interactions, etc. So we believe that the resolution should be closer to what Michael has suggested in the description of the issue. We can add a sentence that says that SysML could be used with other discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages but in our perspective it does unify previous languages and it is not designed as general purpose language that just puts domain specific models into a system wide context. Eldad From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi CC: Eran Gery , "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Thread-Topic: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Thread-Index: AQHNbugO9QJzq1J/ZkKb1GZxEbB8OpdC+JNA///lPACAACUKQP//9RsAgAAzOTA= Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:13:00 +0000 Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.0.24] X-XWALL-BCKS: auto X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id q6VADTUo018765 Eldad, Now I see your point and I totally agree with your statement "But the intent of SysML is still to be a general purpose modeling language for analysis, specification and design of complex multi-disciplinary systems (and not just providing context for domain specific models)." What do you think about the following sentence: SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers and can be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages. /Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:06 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eran Gery; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, According to the current proposed resolution SysML is a general purpose language "intended to to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." While originally the spec says: "SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers." I don't think the intent of SysML has changed during the RTF. What's changed is that languages like statemate and core are used less and SysML is replacing them. I agree that SysML is not replacing Catia, Modelica or Simulink. We do not object to a statement that says that SysML could "be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." But the intent of SysML is still to be a general purpose modeling language for analysis, specification and design of complex multi-disciplinary systems (and not just providing context for domain specific models). Eldad From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: 31/07/2012 10:52 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eran, your response makes it much clearer for me. We must be careful to separate languages, methods and tools. I agree that SysML could replace the language part of "old" approaches like SA/SD or tools like Statemate. However I can't see the conflict with the statement "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It doesn't mention the aspect that SysML replaces or unifies other languages. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eran Gery [mailto:eran.gery@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:32 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eldad Palachi; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, SysML is intended to replace many discrete description languages like Statemate and core. Obviously you will always find "hardliners" that will continue to use those languages for various reasons, from personal taste to SysML being more complex. That said, there is a difference between SysML and Modelica or Catia, which are really focusing on specific domains SysML is not intending to cover. So the reality is that - SysML is unifying/replacing a bunch of "older" discrete type description languages like SA/SD, Core, Statemate - SysML does not aim to cover every domain specific language for Systems Engineering and should properly interoperate with those. The resolution was sort of discounting the first role, emphasizing only the second. Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" , Date: 31/07/2012 10:20 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, I have different opionion (or I didn't understand your point). It is not the idea of SysML to replace discipline/domain-specific languages/tools like Statemate or Catia. Of course there is an overlap between those languages and SysML, but the intent is different. As a consequence I would put a focus on the capability of SysML to support interchange formats like XMI, STEP, ReqIF, and so on. And not to put a focus on increasing the capability for example to store geometric information in SysML. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:44 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) After an internal discussion we realized we do not accept the conclusion of the RTF that SysML is not unifying modeling languages and with the sentence: "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It is true that SysML could "be used with a set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." but in its current form it is unifying languages like Statemate and Core. Although it is true that SysML is not well suited for physical processes simulation we find it quite rich for analyzing requirements, describing system level processes, models and states, architectures, interactions, etc. So we believe that the resolution should be closer to what Michael has suggested in the description of the issue. We can add a sentence that says that SysML could be used with other discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages but in our perspective it does unify previous languages and it is not designed as general purpose language that just puts domain specific models into a system wide context. Eldad Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) X-KeepSent: 862C0054:B34DC697-C2257A4C:003ADB96; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eldad Palachi , "sysml-rtf@omg.org" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Eran Gery Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:43:20 +0300 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML319/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 31/07/2012 13:43:16 x-cbid: 12073110-4966-0000-0000-000003180264 Tim - got suggestion... Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: 31/07/2012 01:14 PM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, Now I see your point and I totally agree with your statement "But the intent of SysML is still to be a general purpose modeling language for analysis, specification and design of complex multi-disciplinary systems (and not just providing context for domain specific models)." What do you think about the following sentence: SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers and can be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages. /Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:06 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eran Gery; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, According to the current proposed resolution SysML is a general purpose language "intended to to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." While originally the spec says: "SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers." I don't think the intent of SysML has changed during the RTF. What's changed is that languages like statemate and core are used less and SysML is replacing them. I agree that SysML is not replacing Catia, Modelica or Simulink. We do not object to a statement that says that SysML could "be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." But the intent of SysML is still to be a general purpose modeling language for analysis, specification and design of complex multi-disciplinary systems (and not just providing context for domain specific models). Eldad From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: 31/07/2012 10:52 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eran, your response makes it much clearer for me. We must be careful to separate languages, methods and tools. I agree that SysML could replace the language part of "old" approaches like SA/SD or tools like Statemate. However I can't see the conflict with the statement "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It doesn't mention the aspect that SysML replaces or unifies other languages. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eran Gery [mailto:eran.gery@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:32 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eldad Palachi; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, SysML is intended to replace many discrete description languages like Statemate and core. Obviously you will always find "hardliners" that will continue to use those languages for various reasons, from personal taste to SysML being more complex. That said, there is a difference between SysML and Modelica or Catia, which are really focusing on specific domains SysML is not intending to cover. So the reality is that - SysML is unifying/replacing a bunch of "older" discrete type description languages like SA/SD, Core, Statemate - SysML does not aim to cover every domain specific language for Systems Engineering and should properly interoperate with those. The resolution was sort of discounting the first role, emphasizing only the second. Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" , Date: 31/07/2012 10:20 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, I have different opionion (or I didn't understand your point). It is not the idea of SysML to replace discipline/domain-specific languages/tools like Statemate or Catia. Of course there is an overlap between those languages and SysML, but the intent is different. As a consequence I would put a focus on the capability of SysML to support interchange formats like XMI, STEP, ReqIF, and so on. And not to put a focus on increasing the capability for example to store geometric information in SysML. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:44 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) After an internal discussion we realized we do not accept the conclusion of the RTF that SysML is not unifying modeling languages and with the sentence: "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It is true that SysML could "be used with a set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." but in its current form it is unifying languages like Statemate and Core. Although it is true that SysML is not well suited for physical processes simulation we find it quite rich for analyzing requirements, describing system level processes, models and states, architectures, interactions, etc. So we believe that the resolution should be closer to what Michael has suggested in the description of the issue. We can add a sentence that says that SysML could be used with other discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages but in our perspective it does unify previous languages and it is not designed as general purpose language that just puts domain specific models into a system wide context. Eldad' Reply-To: From: "Sanford Friedenthal" To: "'Eran Gery'" , "'Burkhart Roger M'" Cc: "'Tim Weilkiens'" , "'Eldad Palachi'" , Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:00:52 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac1vCkFUONZUUFcrSDOaTRbaUWiGmQAARM8g I think Tim.s addition clarifies the intent as well. Roger Could this change be put on ballot 2 or does it need to be withdrawn and resubmitted for the next ballot? Sandy From: Eran Gery [mailto:eran.gery@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 6:49 AM To: Eran Gery Cc: Tim Weilkiens; Eldad Palachi; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) I meant good suggestion... Eran Sent from my iPhone .-31 .... 2012, .... 13:44, "Eran Gery" .../.: Tim - got suggestion... Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: 31/07/2012 01:14 PM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, Now I see your point and I totally agree with your statement "But the intent of SysML is still to be a general purpose modeling language for analysis, specification and design of complex multi-disciplinary systems (and not just providing context for domain specific models)." What do you think about the following sentence: SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers and can be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages. /Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:06 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eran Gery; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, According to the current proposed resolution SysML is a general purpose language "intended to to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." While originally the spec says: "SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers." I don't think the intent of SysML has changed during the RTF. What's changed is that languages like statemate and core are used less and SysML is replacing them. I agree that SysML is not replacing Catia, Modelica or Simulink. We do not object to a statement that says that SysML could "be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." But the intent of SysML is still to be a general purpose modeling language for analysis, specification and design of complex multi-disciplinary systems (and not just providing context for domain specific models). Eldad From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: 31/07/2012 10:52 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eran, your response makes it much clearer for me. We must be careful to separate languages, methods and tools. I agree that SysML could replace the language part of "old" approaches like SA/SD or tools like Statemate. However I can't see the conflict with the statement "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It doesn't mention the aspect that SysML replaces or unifies other languages. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eran Gery [mailto:eran.gery@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:32 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eldad Palachi; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, SysML is intended to replace many discrete description languages like Statemate and core. Obviously you will always find "hardliners" that will continue to use those languages for various reasons, from personal taste to SysML being more complex. That said, there is a difference between SysML and Modelica or Catia, which are really focusing on specific domains SysML is not intending to cover. So the reality is that - SysML is unifying/replacing a bunch of "older" discrete type description languages like SA/SD, Core, Statemate - SysML does not aim to cover every domain specific language for Systems Engineering and should properly interoperate with those. The resolution was sort of discounting the first role, emphasizing only the second. Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" , Date: 31/07/2012 10:20 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, I have different opionion (or I didn't understand your point). It is not the idea of SysML to replace discipline/domain-specific languages/tools like Statemate or Catia. Of course there is an overlap between those languages and SysML, but the intent is different. As a consequence I would put a focus on the capability of SysML to support interchange formats like XMI, STEP, ReqIF, and so on. And not to put a focus on increasing the capability for example to store geometric information in SysML. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:44 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) After an internal discussion we realized we do not accept the conclusion of the RTF that SysML is not unifying modeling languages and with the sentence: "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It is true that SysML could "be used with a set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." but in its current form it is unifying languages like Statemate and Core. Although it is true that SysML is not well suited for physical processes simulation we find it quite rich for analyzing requirements, describing system level processes, models and states, architectures, interactions, etc. So we believe that the resolution should be closer to what Michael has suggested in the description of the issue. We can add a sentence that says that SysML could be used with other discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages but in our perspective it does unify previous languages and it is not designed as general purpose language that just puts domain specific models into a system wide context. Eldad Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) X-KeepSent: CEB731BC:63598EDB-C2257A4C:003BF350; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eran Gery , "sysml-rtf@omg.org" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Eldad Palachi Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:03:45 +0300 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML319/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 31/07/2012 14:03:38 x-cbid: 12073111-6892-0000-0000-0000029516B4 I agree, but I think we need to remove the word "currently" since that was the issue Michael raised. So how about: SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages used by systems engineers and can be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages. Eldad From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: 31/07/2012 01:13 PM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, Now I see your point and I totally agree with your statement "But the intent of SysML is still to be a general purpose modeling language for analysis, specification and design of complex multi-disciplinary systems (and not just providing context for domain specific models)." What do you think about the following sentence: SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers and can be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages. /Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:06 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eran Gery; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, According to the current proposed resolution SysML is a general purpose language "intended to to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." While originally the spec says: "SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers." I don't think the intent of SysML has changed during the RTF. What's changed is that languages like statemate and core are used less and SysML is replacing them. I agree that SysML is not replacing Catia, Modelica or Simulink. We do not object to a statement that says that SysML could "be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." But the intent of SysML is still to be a general purpose modeling language for analysis, specification and design of complex multi-disciplinary systems (and not just providing context for domain specific models). Eldad From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: 31/07/2012 10:52 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eran, your response makes it much clearer for me. We must be careful to separate languages, methods and tools. I agree that SysML could replace the language part of "old" approaches like SA/SD or tools like Statemate. However I can't see the conflict with the statement "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It doesn't mention the aspect that SysML replaces or unifies other languages. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eran Gery [mailto:eran.gery@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:32 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eldad Palachi; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, SysML is intended to replace many discrete description languages like Statemate and core. Obviously you will always find "hardliners" that will continue to use those languages for various reasons, from personal taste to SysML being more complex. That said, there is a difference between SysML and Modelica or Catia, which are really focusing on specific domains SysML is not intending to cover. So the reality is that - SysML is unifying/replacing a bunch of "older" discrete type description languages like SA/SD, Core, Statemate - SysML does not aim to cover every domain specific language for Systems Engineering and should properly interoperate with those. The resolution was sort of discounting the first role, emphasizing only the second. Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" , Date: 31/07/2012 10:20 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, I have different opionion (or I didn't understand your point). It is not the idea of SysML to replace discipline/domain-specific languages/tools like Statemate or Catia. Of course there is an overlap between those languages and SysML, but the intent is different. As a consequence I would put a focus on the capability of SysML to support interchange formats like XMI, STEP, ReqIF, and so on. And not to put a focus on increasing the capability for example to store geometric information in SysML. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:44 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) After an internal discussion we realized we do not accept the conclusion of the RTF that SysML is not unifying modeling languages and with the sentence: "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It is true that SysML could "be used with a set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." but in its current form it is unifying languages like Statemate and Core. Although it is true that SysML is not well suited for physical processes simulation we find it quite rich for analyzing requirements, describing system level processes, models and states, architectures, interactions, etc. So we believe that the resolution should be closer to what Michael has suggested in the description of the issue. We can add a sentence that says that SysML could be used with other discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages but in our perspective it does unify previous languages and it is not designed as general purpose language that just puts domain specific models into a system wide context. Eldad From: Burkhart Roger M To: "safriedenthal@verizon.net" , "'Eran Gery'" , "'Tim Weilkiens'" , "'Eldad Palachi'" CC: "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 06:52:55 -0500 Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Thread-Topic: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Thread-Index: Ac1vCkFUONZUUFcrSDOaTRbaUWiGmQAARM8gAACY48A= Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.7.7855,1.0.260,0.0.0000 definitions=2012-07-31_01:2012-07-31,2012-07-30,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.7.7855,1.0.260,0.0.0000 definitions=2012-07-31_01:2012-07-31,2012-07-30,1970-01-01 signatures=0 In reply to Sandy, if we all agree on a new version, it can still go into ballot 2. That's what the ballot review is for, and why I like to take a full two weeks. Here's Eldad's most recent suggestion: SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages used by systems engineers and can be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages. I'd prefer more open-ended language by dropping the first "the" so it reads simply "to unify diverse modeling languages." It's interesting to consider what SE modeling languages are currently being unified by SysML, and how these have changed since SysML was released. Eran noted that, historically, has already begun such unification: - SysML is unifying/replacing a bunch of "older" discrete type description languages like SA/SD, Core, Statemate By dropping the "currently" from Tim's suggestion as Eldad suggested, we leave the ongoing unification open to whatever languages are still being unified. Presumably, though, there is a set of useful modeling languages used by systems engineers that can be unified directly with SysML, perhaps including new ones, and we should encourage this whenever possible. Meanwhile, the language "can be used" for all the languages used by specific engineering disciplines allows all the different ways these languages may or may not be connected. We could refer to a "wide variety" of such languages to avoid repeating the modifier "diverse," if this variation is acceptable. If nobody objects to the new language by the end of the day, I'll update it in ballot 2. For context, the entire replacement paragraph in the resolution would now read: It is common practice for engineers to use a wide range of modeling languages, tools, and techniques on large systems projects. SysML is intended to unify diverse modeling languages used by systems engineers and can be used with a wide variety of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages. If anyone has any further suggestions or wording changes, please let me know, but if I don't hear otherwise I can put this into the review version for the next few days. --Roger From: Sanford Friedenthal [mailto:safriedenthal@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 6:01 AM To: 'Eran Gery'; Burkhart Roger M Cc: 'Tim Weilkiens'; 'Eldad Palachi'; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) I think Tim.s addition clarifies the intent as well. Roger Could this change be put on ballot 2 or does it need to be withdrawn and resubmitted for the next ballot? Sandy From: Eran Gery [mailto:eran.gery@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 6:49 AM To: Eran Gery Cc: Tim Weilkiens; Eldad Palachi; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) I meant good suggestion... Eran Sent from my iPhone .-31 .... 2012, .... 13:44, "Eran Gery" .../.: Tim - got suggestion... Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: 31/07/2012 01:14 PM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, Now I see your point and I totally agree with your statement "But the intent of SysML is still to be a general purpose modeling language for analysis, specification and design of complex multi-disciplinary systems (and not just providing context for domain specific models)." What do you think about the following sentence: SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers and can be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages. /Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:06 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eran Gery; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, According to the current proposed resolution SysML is a general purpose language "intended to to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." While originally the spec says: "SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers." I don't think the intent of SysML has changed during the RTF. What's changed is that languages like statemate and core are used less and SysML is replacing them. I agree that SysML is not replacing Catia, Modelica or Simulink. We do not object to a statement that says that SysML could "be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." But the intent of SysML is still to be a general purpose modeling language for analysis, specification and design of complex multi-disciplinary systems (and not just providing context for domain specific models). Eldad From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: 31/07/2012 10:52 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eran, your response makes it much clearer for me. We must be careful to separate languages, methods and tools. I agree that SysML could replace the language part of "old" approaches like SA/SD or tools like Statemate. However I can't see the conflict with the statement "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It doesn't mention the aspect that SysML replaces or unifies other languages. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eran Gery [mailto:eran.gery@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:32 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eldad Palachi; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, SysML is intended to replace many discrete description languages like Statemate and core. Obviously you will always find "hardliners" that will continue to use those languages for various reasons, from personal taste to SysML being more complex. That said, there is a difference between SysML and Modelica or Catia, which are really focusing on specific domains SysML is not intending to cover. So the reality is that - SysML is unifying/replacing a bunch of "older" discrete type description languages like SA/SD, Core, Statemate - SysML does not aim to cover every domain specific language for Systems Engineering and should properly interoperate with those. The resolution was sort of discounting the first role, emphasizing only the second. Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" , Date: 31/07/2012 10:20 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, I have different opionion (or I didn't understand your point). It is not the idea of SysML to replace discipline/domain-specific languages/tools like Statemate or Catia. Of course there is an overlap between those languages and SysML, but the intent is different. As a consequence I would put a focus on the capability of SysML to support interchange formats like XMI, STEP, ReqIF, and so on. And not to put a focus on increasing the capability for example to store geometric information in SysML. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:44 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) After an internal discussion we realized we do not accept the conclusion of the RTF that SysML is not unifying modeling languages and with the sentence: "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It is true that SysML could "be used with a set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." but in its current form it is unifying languages like Statemate and Core. Although it is true that SysML is not well suited for physical processes simulation we find it quite rich for analyzing requirements, describing system level processes, models and states, architectures, interactions, etc. So we believe that the resolution should be closer to what Michael has suggested in the description of the issue. We can add a sentence that says that SysML could be used with other discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages but in our perspective it does unify previous languages and it is not designed as general purpose language that just puts domain specific models into a system wide context. Eldad DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; bh=qlfdQmpi4EW5x5Bxr+f0iDOtAvUOcwWZfveUf16qb4s=; b=UykJ1Gu5zO4IWLcnAOSDEX2Qip5ck56JGpQoIJkDjtXIHdz7DkozQNJwjxXBHYFklN Fc4jJR6qarKq0ylEvq/mq8yURg8IBZUAGAX1JkVUTOEZgyqbNZ4GmIGaePrGN0kaLQJb afe7OrnUkLuOBJC3aAS3gY0bLiHrIiktszblRMOKg6iO8DrFZCKx7KveDPykVqkI2XFT qzOubH+8OrL7ODy96cIFKgihNj6CBnlfZGsz2L4flVfCSVGyKkNH93vXVqMdVjWVL1xD 4mDWt7/NKJ3MLTw2glpgdJVDTCFOvKOsC/2sC8tm2L8nHCd4/md07waBAt5QzYB6uVgD 6Zsg== From: "Sanford Friedenthal" To: "'Burkhart Roger M'" , , "'Eran Gery'" , "'Tim Weilkiens'" , "'Eldad Palachi'" Cc: Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:13:10 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-index: Ac1vCkFUONZUUFcrSDOaTRbaUWiGmQAARM8gAACY48AAAgW8kA== I agree with Roger.s suggestion to remove the first .the.. From: Burkhart Roger M [mailto:BurkhartRogerM@JohnDeere.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 7:53 AM To: safriedenthal@verizon.net; 'Eran Gery'; 'Tim Weilkiens'; 'Eldad Palachi' Cc: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) In reply to Sandy, if we all agree on a new version, it can still go into ballot 2. That's what the ballot review is for, and why I like to take a full two weeks. Here's Eldad's most recent suggestion: SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages used by systems engineers and can be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages. I'd prefer more open-ended language by dropping the first "the" so it reads simply "to unify diverse modeling languages." It's interesting to consider what SE modeling languages are currently being unified by SysML, and how these have changed since SysML was released. Eran noted that, historically, has already begun such unification: - SysML is unifying/replacing a bunch of "older" discrete type description languages like SA/SD, Core, Statemate By dropping the "currently" from Tim's suggestion as Eldad suggested, we leave the ongoing unification open to whatever languages are still being unified. Presumably, though, there is a set of useful modeling languages used by systems engineers that can be unified directly with SysML, perhaps including new ones, and we should encourage this whenever possible. Meanwhile, the language "can be used" for all the languages used by specific engineering disciplines allows all the different ways these languages may or may not be connected. We could refer to a "wide variety" of such languages to avoid repeating the modifier "diverse," if this variation is acceptable. If nobody objects to the new language by the end of the day, I'll update it in ballot 2. For context, the entire replacement paragraph in the resolution would now read: It is common practice for engineers to use a wide range of modeling languages, tools, and techniques on large systems projects. SysML is intended to unify diverse modeling languages used by systems engineers and can be used with a wide variety of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages. If anyone has any further suggestions or wording changes, please let me know, but if I don't hear otherwise I can put this into the review version for the next few days. --Roger From: Sanford Friedenthal [mailto:safriedenthal@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 6:01 AM To: 'Eran Gery'; Burkhart Roger M Cc: 'Tim Weilkiens'; 'Eldad Palachi'; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) I think Tim.s addition clarifies the intent as well. Roger Could this change be put on ballot 2 or does it need to be withdrawn and resubmitted for the next ballot? Sandy From: Eran Gery [mailto:eran.gery@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 6:49 AM To: Eran Gery Cc: Tim Weilkiens; Eldad Palachi; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) I meant good suggestion... Eran Sent from my iPhone .-31 .... 2012, .... 13:44, "Eran Gery" .../.: Tim - got suggestion... Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: 31/07/2012 01:14 PM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, Now I see your point and I totally agree with your statement "But the intent of SysML is still to be a general purpose modeling language for analysis, specification and design of complex multi-disciplinary systems (and not just providing context for domain specific models)." What do you think about the following sentence: SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers and can be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages. /Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:06 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eran Gery; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, According to the current proposed resolution SysML is a general purpose language "intended to to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." While originally the spec says: "SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers." I don't think the intent of SysML has changed during the RTF. What's changed is that languages like statemate and core are used less and SysML is replacing them. I agree that SysML is not replacing Catia, Modelica or Simulink. We do not object to a statement that says that SysML could "be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." But the intent of SysML is still to be a general purpose modeling language for analysis, specification and design of complex multi-disciplinary systems (and not just providing context for domain specific models). Eldad From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: 31/07/2012 10:52 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eran, your response makes it much clearer for me. We must be careful to separate languages, methods and tools. I agree that SysML could replace the language part of "old" approaches like SA/SD or tools like Statemate. However I can't see the conflict with the statement "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It doesn't mention the aspect that SysML replaces or unifies other languages. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eran Gery [mailto:eran.gery@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:32 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eldad Palachi; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, SysML is intended to replace many discrete description languages like Statemate and core. Obviously you will always find "hardliners" that will continue to use those languages for various reasons, from personal taste to SysML being more complex. That said, there is a difference between SysML and Modelica or Catia, which are really focusing on specific domains SysML is not intending to cover. So the reality is that - SysML is unifying/replacing a bunch of "older" discrete type description languages like SA/SD, Core, Statemate - SysML does not aim to cover every domain specific language for Systems Engineering and should properly interoperate with those. The resolution was sort of discounting the first role, emphasizing only the second. Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" , Date: 31/07/2012 10:20 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, I have different opionion (or I didn't understand your point). It is not the idea of SysML to replace discipline/domain-specific languages/tools like Statemate or Catia. Of course there is an overlap between those languages and SysML, but the intent is different. As a consequence I would put a focus on the capability of SysML to support interchange formats like XMI, STEP, ReqIF, and so on. And not to put a focus on increasing the capability for example to store geometric information in SysML. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:44 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) After an internal discussion we realized we do not accept the conclusion of the RTF that SysML is not unifying modeling languages and with the sentence: "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It is true that SysML could "be used with a set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." but in its current form it is unifying languages like Statemate and Core. Although it is true that SysML is not well suited for physical processes simulation we find it quite rich for analyzing requirements, describing system level processes, models and states, architectures, interactions, etc. So we believe that the resolution should be closer to what Michael has suggested in the description of the issue. We can add a sentence that says that SysML could be used with other discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages but in our perspective it does unify previous languages and it is not designed as general purpose language that just puts domain specific models into a system wide context. Eldad Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) X-KeepSent: 2AFBED6F:D334FF6F-C2257A4C:0044BCD8; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: "Sanford Friedenthal" Cc: "'Burkhart Roger M'" , Eran Gery , safriedenthal@verizon.net, sysml-rtf@omg.org, "'Tim Weilkiens'" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Eldad Palachi Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:31:10 +0300 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML319/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 31/07/2012 15:31:04 x-cbid: 12073112-4966-0000-0000-0000031848E3 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id q6VCVKkn025795 Me too. From: "Sanford Friedenthal" To: "'Burkhart Roger M'" , , Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "'Tim Weilkiens'" , Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Date: 31/07/2012 03:14 PM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) I agree with Roger.s suggestion to remove the first .the.. From: Burkhart Roger M [mailto:BurkhartRogerM@JohnDeere.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 7:53 AM To: safriedenthal@verizon.net; 'Eran Gery'; 'Tim Weilkiens'; 'Eldad Palachi' Cc: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) In reply to Sandy, if we all agree on a new version, it can still go into ballot 2. That's what the ballot review is for, and why I like to take a full two weeks. Here's Eldad's most recent suggestion: SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages used by systems engineers and can be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages. I'd prefer more open-ended language by dropping the first "the" so it reads simply "to unify diverse modeling languages." It's interesting to consider what SE modeling languages are currently being unified by SysML, and how these have changed since SysML was released. Eran noted that, historically, has already begun such unification: - SysML is unifying/replacing a bunch of "older" discrete type description languages like SA/SD, Core, Statemate By dropping the "currently" from Tim's suggestion as Eldad suggested, we leave the ongoing unification open to whatever languages are still being unified. Presumably, though, there is a set of useful modeling languages used by systems engineers that can be unified directly with SysML, perhaps including new ones, and we should encourage this whenever possible. Meanwhile, the language "can be used" for all the languages used by specific engineering disciplines allows all the different ways these languages may or may not be connected. We could refer to a "wide variety" of such languages to avoid repeating the modifier "diverse," if this variation is acceptable. If nobody objects to the new language by the end of the day, I'll update it in ballot 2. For context, the entire replacement paragraph in the resolution would now read: It is common practice for engineers to use a wide range of modeling languages, tools, and techniques on large systems projects. SysML is intended to unify diverse modeling languages used by systems engineers and can be used with a wide variety of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages. If anyone has any further suggestions or wording changes, please let me know, but if I don't hear otherwise I can put this into the review version for the next few days. --Roger From: Sanford Friedenthal [mailto:safriedenthal@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 6:01 AM To: 'Eran Gery'; Burkhart Roger M Cc: 'Tim Weilkiens'; 'Eldad Palachi'; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) I think Tim.s addition clarifies the intent as well. Roger Could this change be put on ballot 2 or does it need to be withdrawn and resubmitted for the next ballot? Sandy From: Eran Gery [mailto:eran.gery@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 6:49 AM To: Eran Gery Cc: Tim Weilkiens; Eldad Palachi; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) I meant good suggestion... Eran Sent from my iPhone á1 áì012, áä3:44, "Eran Gery" ë/ä Tim - got suggestion... Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: 31/07/2012 01:14 PM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, Now I see your point and I totally agree with your statement "But the intent of SysML is still to be a general purpose modeling language for analysis, specification and design of complex multi-disciplinary systems (and not just providing context for domain specific models)." What do you think about the following sentence: SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers and can be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages. /Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:06 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eran Gery; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, According to the current proposed resolution SysML is a general purpose language "intended to to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." While originally the spec says: "SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers." I don't think the intent of SysML has changed during the RTF. What's changed is that languages like statemate and core are used less and SysML is replacing them. I agree that SysML is not replacing Catia, Modelica or Simulink. We do not object to a statement that says that SysML could "be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." But the intent of SysML is still to be a general purpose modeling language for analysis, specification and design of complex multi-disciplinary systems (and not just providing context for domain specific models). Eldad From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: 31/07/2012 10:52 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eran, your response makes it much clearer for me. We must be careful to separate languages, methods and tools. I agree that SysML could replace the language part of "old" approaches like SA/SD or tools like Statemate. However I can't see the conflict with the statement "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It doesn't mention the aspect that SysML replaces or unifies other languages. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eran Gery [mailto:eran.gery@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:32 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eldad Palachi; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, SysML is intended to replace many discrete description languages like Statemate and core. Obviously you will always find "hardliners" that will continue to use those languages for various reasons, from personal taste to SysML being more complex. That said, there is a difference between SysML and Modelica or Catia, which are really focusing on specific domains SysML is not intending to cover. So the reality is that - SysML is unifying/replacing a bunch of "older" discrete type description languages like SA/SD, Core, Statemate - SysML does not aim to cover every domain specific language for Systems Engineering and should properly interoperate with those. The resolution was sort of discounting the first role, emphasizing only the second. Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens < Tim.Weilkiens@oose.de> To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" , Date: 31/07/2012 10:20 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, I have different opionion (or I didn't understand your point). It is not the idea of SysML to replace discipline/domain-specific languages/tools like Statemate or Catia. Of course there is an overlap between those languages and SysML, but the intent is different. As a consequence I would put a focus on the capability of SysML to support interchange formats like XMI, STEP, ReqIF, and so on. And not to put a focus on increasing the capability for example to store geometric information in SysML. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:44 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) After an internal discussion we realized we do not accept the conclusion of the RTF that SysML is not unifying modeling languages and with the sentence: "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It is true that SysML could "be used with a set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." but in its current form it is unifying languages like Statemate and Core. Although it is true that SysML is not well suited for physical processes simulation we find it quite rich for analyzing requirements, describing system level processes, models and states, architectures, interactions, etc. So we believe that the resolution should be closer to what Michael has suggested in the description of the issue. We can add a sentence that says that SysML could be used with other discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages but in our perspective it does unify previous languages and it is not designed as general purpose language that just puts domain specific models into a system wide context. Eldad From: Tim Weilkiens To: Sanford Friedenthal , "'Burkhart Roger M'" , "safriedenthal@verizon.net" , "'Eran Gery'" , "'Eldad Palachi'" CC: "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Thread-Topic: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Thread-Index: AQHNbugO9QJzq1J/ZkKb1GZxEbB8OgAARM8gAACY48CXQyVuAIAAJnAQ Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:32:04 +0000 Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.0.24] X-XWALL-BCKS: auto Perfect for me. Thanks, Tim From: Sanford Friedenthal [mailto:safriedenthal@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 2:13 PM To: 'Burkhart Roger M'; safriedenthal@verizon.net; 'Eran Gery'; Tim Weilkiens; 'Eldad Palachi' Cc: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) I agree with Roger.s suggestion to remove the first .the.. From: Burkhart Roger M [mailto:BurkhartRogerM@JohnDeere.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 7:53 AM To: safriedenthal@verizon.net; 'Eran Gery'; 'Tim Weilkiens'; 'Eldad Palachi' Cc: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) In reply to Sandy, if we all agree on a new version, it can still go into ballot 2. That's what the ballot review is for, and why I like to take a full two weeks. Here's Eldad's most recent suggestion: SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages used by systems engineers and can be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages. I'd prefer more open-ended language by dropping the first "the" so it reads simply "to unify diverse modeling languages." It's interesting to consider what SE modeling languages are currently being unified by SysML, and how these have changed since SysML was released. Eran noted that, historically, has already begun such unification: - SysML is unifying/replacing a bunch of "older" discrete type description languages like SA/SD, Core, Statemate By dropping the "currently" from Tim's suggestion as Eldad suggested, we leave the ongoing unification open to whatever languages are still being unified. Presumably, though, there is a set of useful modeling languages used by systems engineers that can be unified directly with SysML, perhaps including new ones, and we should encourage this whenever possible. Meanwhile, the language "can be used" for all the languages used by specific engineering disciplines allows all the different ways these languages may or may not be connected. We could refer to a "wide variety" of such languages to avoid repeating the modifier "diverse," if this variation is acceptable. If nobody objects to the new language by the end of the day, I'll update it in ballot 2. For context, the entire replacement paragraph in the resolution would now read: It is common practice for engineers to use a wide range of modeling languages, tools, and techniques on large systems projects. SysML is intended to unify diverse modeling languages used by systems engineers and can be used with a wide variety of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages. If anyone has any further suggestions or wording changes, please let me know, but if I don't hear otherwise I can put this into the review version for the next few days. --Roger From: Sanford Friedenthal [mailto:safriedenthal@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 6:01 AM To: 'Eran Gery'; Burkhart Roger M Cc: 'Tim Weilkiens'; 'Eldad Palachi'; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) I think Tim.s addition clarifies the intent as well. Roger Could this change be put on ballot 2 or does it need to be withdrawn and resubmitted for the next ballot? Sandy From: Eran Gery [mailto:eran.gery@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 6:49 AM To: Eran Gery Cc: Tim Weilkiens; Eldad Palachi; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) I meant good suggestion... Eran Sent from my iPhone .-31 .... 2012, .... 13:44, "Eran Gery" .../.: Tim - got suggestion... Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: 31/07/2012 01:14 PM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, Now I see your point and I totally agree with your statement "But the intent of SysML is still to be a general purpose modeling language for analysis, specification and design of complex multi-disciplinary systems (and not just providing context for domain specific models)." What do you think about the following sentence: SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers and can be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages. /Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:06 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eran Gery; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, According to the current proposed resolution SysML is a general purpose language "intended to to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." While originally the spec says: "SysML is intended to unify the diverse modeling languages currently used by systems engineers." I don't think the intent of SysML has changed during the RTF. What's changed is that languages like statemate and core are used less and SysML is replacing them. I agree that SysML is not replacing Catia, Modelica or Simulink. We do not object to a statement that says that SysML could "be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." But the intent of SysML is still to be a general purpose modeling language for analysis, specification and design of complex multi-disciplinary systems (and not just providing context for domain specific models). Eldad From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eran Gery/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Cc: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: 31/07/2012 10:52 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eran, your response makes it much clearer for me. We must be careful to separate languages, methods and tools. I agree that SysML could replace the language part of "old" approaches like SA/SD or tools like Statemate. However I can't see the conflict with the statement "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It doesn't mention the aspect that SysML replaces or unifies other languages. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eran Gery [mailto:eran.gery@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:32 AM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Eldad Palachi; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Tim, SysML is intended to replace many discrete description languages like Statemate and core. Obviously you will always find "hardliners" that will continue to use those languages for various reasons, from personal taste to SysML being more complex. That said, there is a difference between SysML and Modelica or Catia, which are really focusing on specific domains SysML is not intending to cover. So the reality is that - SysML is unifying/replacing a bunch of "older" discrete type description languages like SA/SD, Core, Statemate - SysML does not aim to cover every domain specific language for Systems Engineering and should properly interoperate with those. The resolution was sort of discounting the first role, emphasizing only the second. Eran Eran Gery IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Systems Platform From: Tim Weilkiens To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" , Date: 31/07/2012 10:20 AM Subject: RE: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) Eldad, I have different opionion (or I didn't understand your point). It is not the idea of SysML to replace discipline/domain-specific languages/tools like Statemate or Catia. Of course there is an overlap between those languages and SysML, but the intent is different. As a consequence I would put a focus on the capability of SysML to support interchange formats like XMI, STEP, ReqIF, and so on. And not to put a focus on increasing the capability for example to store geometric information in SysML. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:44 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Regarding issue 17246 (on the intentions of SysML) After an internal discussion we realized we do not accept the conclusion of the RTF that SysML is not unifying modeling languages and with the sentence: "SysML is intended to be used with a diverse set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." It is true that SysML could "be used with a set of discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages." but in its current form it is unifying languages like Statemate and Core. Although it is true that SysML is not well suited for physical processes simulation we find it quite rich for analyzing requirements, describing system level processes, models and states, architectures, interactions, etc. So we believe that the resolution should be closer to what Michael has suggested in the description of the issue. We can add a sentence that says that SysML could be used with other discipline- and domain-specific modeling languages but in our perspective it does unify previous languages and it is not designed as general purpose language that just puts domain specific models into a system wide context. Eldad