Issues for OMG SysML 1.5 Revision Task Force

To comment on any of these issues, send email to sysml-rtf@omg.org. (Please include the issue number in the Subject: header, thusly: [Issue ###].) To submit a new issue, send email to issues@omg.org.

List of issues (green=resolved, yellow=pending Board vote, red=unresolved)

List options: All ; Open Issues only; or Closed Issues only

Jira Issues

Issue 10047: SysML: Protocol State Machines needed Jira Issue SYSMLR-1
Issue 10048: SysML: UML Qualifieed Associations Jira Issue SYSMLR-2
Issue 10058: SysML: Generalizing Activites Jira Issue SYSMLR-3
Issue 10410: Section: 9.3.2.5 FlowPort Jira Issue SYSMLR-4
Issue 10500: Section: Figure 14.2 Jira Issue SYSMLR-5
Issue 10642: Timing diagrams Jira Issue SYSMLR-6
Issue 11011: Block namespace compartment: Are external relationships allowed Jira Issue SYSMLR-7
Issue 11117: Section: 12. Interactions Jira Issue SYSMLR-8
Issue 11276: Issue: Nested connector ends Jira Issue SYSMLR-9
Issue 11333: BindingConnector Jira Issue SYSMLR-10
Issue 11493: Lack of notation for units and dimensions on values. Jira Issue SYSMLR-11
Issue 11496: It is not allowed in UML to display stereotypes of related elements Jira Issue SYSMLR-12
Issue 11499: Parts are added directly into package Jira Issue SYSMLR-13
Issue 11627: SysML: Interaction diagram and Data-based comm of SysML Jira Issue SYSMLR-14
Issue 11653: Section: 5.3 Jira Issue SYSMLR-15
Issue 12123: Inferred Allocation on Allocate Activity Partitions Jira Issue SYSMLR-16
Issue 12125: Item Flows on Activity Diagrams Jira Issue SYSMLR-17
Issue 12131: 10.3.1.2 Parametric Diagram Jira Issue SYSMLR-18
Issue 12144: Annex B / B.4.8.3 Activity Diagram Jira Issue SYSMLR-19
Issue 12145: Annex B / Figure B.10 Jira Issue SYSMLR-20
Issue 12146: Annex B / Figure B.9 Jira Issue SYSMLR-21
Issue 12147: Annex B / Figure B27 Jira Issue SYSMLR-22
Issue 12152: Annex B / Figure B.35 Jira Issue SYSMLR-23
Issue 12154: Annex B / Figure B.38 Jira Issue SYSMLR-24
Issue 12160: Annex B, Figure B.29 Jira Issue SYSMLR-25
Issue 12255: Section: Generalization of stereotyped elements Jira Issue SYSMLR-26
Issue 12366: Figure B.34 and Figure B.35 Jira Issue SYSMLR-27
Issue 13152: SysML: Align SysML Activities with Foundational UML Jira Issue SYSMLR-28
Issue 13153: SysML: Activity Properties should be accessible in Activity diagrams for decision making Jira Issue SYSMLR-29
Issue 13154: SysM:L: Operations on Activities need to be callable (e.g., start, restart, cancel) Jira Issue SYSMLR-30
Issue 13177: Requirements interchange issue Jira Issue SYSMLR-31
Issue 13197: Representation of nested object nodes in activity diagrams Jira Issue SYSMLR-32
Issue 13219: Section: 8/8.3.2 Inability to efficiently capture datasets Jira Issue SYSMLR-33
Issue 13259: Requirement constants should be integrated into Model-centric vision of SysmL Jira Issue SYSMLR-34
Issue 13261: Binding Relationships require unit conversions Jira Issue SYSMLR-35
Issue 13263: Support BDD's for State Machines Jira Issue SYSMLR-36
Issue 13342: AllocateActivityPartition and UML 2 semantics Jira Issue SYSMLR-37
Issue 13348: Inability to represent dependent, independent parameters on constraint properties Jira Issue SYSMLR-38
Issue 13840: Allocations should not generate dependencies Jira Issue SYSMLR-39
Issue 13939: Parsing Text in Requirements Jira Issue SYSMLR-40
Issue 13942: Table 16.2 (top of pg. 146): Trace Dependency concrete syntax diagram incorrect Jira Issue SYSMLR-41
Issue 14055: Proposal to have a stereotype for reference nested property Jira Issue SYSMLR-42
Issue 14058: Flow port compatibility with behavior Jira Issue SYSMLR-43
Issue 14059: Need to have an explicit way to bind flow properties or atomic flow ports to block properties Jira Issue SYSMLR-44
Issue 14575: callout notation issues Jira Issue SYSMLR-45
Issue 14998: Binding to multiplicity in parametrics Jira Issue SYSMLR-46
Issue 15003: Do parametric bindings observe derived and read-only properties Jira Issue SYSMLR-47
Issue 15018: SysML 7.3.2.5 Viewpoint Jira Issue SYSMLR-48
Issue 15079: Ability for a binding connector to be typed Jira Issue SYSMLR-49
Issue 15112: Inheriting Allocations Jira Issue SYSMLR-50
Issue 15132: Allocate of Actions or of Activities Jira Issue SYSMLR-51
Issue 15176: Flow properties and activity paramters Jira Issue SYSMLR-52
Issue 15293: SysML 1.2 Issue Viewpoint referencing other viewpoints properties Jira Issue SYSMLR-53
Issue 15295: SysML 1.2 Issues: Default <block> stereotype on unlabeled box is not always optimal Jira Issue SYSMLR-54
Issue 15296: SysML 1.2 Issues: DistributedProperties on Activates Jira Issue SYSMLR-55
Issue 15298: Continuous flows in non-streaming situations with >1 multiplicities Jira Issue SYSMLR-56
Issue 15299: SysML 1.2 Issues: Optional with streaming Jira Issue SYSMLR-57
Issue 15683: Figure B.35 object nodes Jira Issue SYSMLR-58
Issue 15728: SysML Issue based on UML 15369 Jira Issue SYSMLR-59
Issue 15730: SysML Issue representation of properties as associations Jira Issue SYSMLR-60
Issue 15875: SysML Issue on Multiplicity of Use Case Communication Associations Jira Issue SYSMLR-61
Issue 15882: SysML primitive value types Jira Issue SYSMLR-62
Issue 15884: Another issue with allocate Jira Issue SYSMLR-63
Issue 15982: Blocks cannot own items flows Jira Issue SYSMLR-64
Issue 15983: IBD notation doesn't distinguish item properties from connector labels Jira Issue SYSMLR-65
Issue 15985: Description of Item Flows Jira Issue SYSMLR-66
Issue 16016: SysML Issue on Refine limitations Jira Issue SYSMLR-67
Issue 16042: Item flows can have multiple types but item properties cannot Jira Issue SYSMLR-68
Issue 16057: Compartment labelling rules Jira Issue SYSMLR-69
Issue 16058: Definition of part Jira Issue SYSMLR-70
Issue 16093: Incorrect statement about UML n-aries Jira Issue SYSMLR-71
Issue 16112: Where have stereotypes been defined? Jira Issue SYSMLR-72
Issue 16113: parameter of the constraint block StraightLineVehicleDynamics shown in figure B.31 seems to be incomplete Jira Issue SYSMLR-73
Issue 16170: Multiassociation Jira Issue SYSMLR-74
Issue 16263: Association owning ends Jira Issue SYSMLR-75
Issue 16286: TestCase should use PackageMerge Jira Issue SYSMLR-76
Issue 16304: Can Enumerations be used on parametric diagrams for typing constraint parameters Jira Issue SYSMLR-77
Issue 16373: Content of Requirement::/tracedTo Jira Issue SYSMLR-78
Issue 16636: Problems with property-specific types Jira Issue SYSMLR-79
Issue 16652: InstanceSpecifications for exactly one instance Jira Issue SYSMLR-80
Issue 16653: InstanceSpecification equality Jira Issue SYSMLR-81
Issue 16657: Lightweight representations of faults, failures, hazards and off-nominal conditions and behavior Jira Issue SYSMLR-82
Issue 16726: Issue on Block constraint#4 Jira Issue SYSMLR-83
Issue 16876: SysML's PrimitiveValueTypes library is missing "value" properties everywhere Jira Issue SYSMLR-84
Issue 16891: SysML diagrams show only SysML-stereotyped elements Jira Issue SYSMLR-85
Issue 16945: Question about the Activity decomposition in Bloc Definition Diagrams Jira Issue SYSMLR-86
Issue 16947: Error in pending 1.3 diagram 15.6 and elsewhere Jira Issue SYSMLR-87
Issue 17016: Property Based Requirements Jira Issue SYSMLR-88
Issue 17210: SysML XMI seems to define its own versions of UML Primitive Types rather than reusing those from UML Jira Issue SYSMLR-89
Issue 17248: Section 9.3.1.7 Jira Issue SYSMLR-90
Issue 17251: Port labels inside Port symbol Jira Issue SYSMLR-91
Issue 17255: 9.3.2.9 What is InterfaceBlock? Jira Issue SYSMLR-92
Issue 17307: clarification, what "part property" is Jira Issue SYSMLR-93
Issue 17373: Is <<equal>> keyword (or stereotype) on binding connectors is part of SysML notation? Jira Issue SYSMLR-94
Issue 17406: Callout notation for port-specific types and initial values Jira Issue SYSMLR-95
Issue 17423: remove figure numbers from diagram frames Jira Issue SYSMLR-96
Issue 17467: SysML: References to CreateEvent incorrect Jira Issue SYSMLR-97
Issue 17501: Problems with 1.3 Enumeration Literals Jira Issue SYSMLR-98
Issue 17546: Contradiction regarding allowed use of the derived indicator for constraint parameters Jira Issue SYSMLR-99
Issue 18168: How to refer to properties of an extension? Jira Issue SYSMLR-100
Issue 18169: Interface blocks and protocols Jira Issue SYSMLR-101
Issue 18181: Missing ownership constraints Jira Issue SYSMLR-102
Issue 18182: Missing type constraints for FullPort Jira Issue SYSMLR-103
Issue 18183: Incorrect constraint [2] on InterfaceBlock Jira Issue SYSMLR-104
Issue 18193: Fix the notation (hopefully in the same way as UML) to allow allocation of a decision to a swimlane Jira Issue SYSMLR-105
Issue 18268: SysML stereotype notation creates ambiguity about to which element is the stereotype applied Jira Issue SYSMLR-106
Issue 18312: VerdictKind Jira Issue SYSMLR-107
Issue 18391: View and Viewpoint Limitations in support of auto-view generation Jira Issue SYSMLR-108
Issue 18409: Figure 15.8 diagram type Jira Issue SYSMLR-109
Issue 18410: Constraint [5] should include specializations of Requirement Jira Issue SYSMLR-110
Issue 18434: Inability to specify partial allocation and requriements satisfaction Jira Issue SYSMLR-111
Issue 18439: 9.3.2.4 direction of ports Jira Issue SYSMLR-112
Issue 18441: 9.3.2.4 direction of ports and their notation (second issue) Jira Issue SYSMLR-113
Issue 18458: Ports and Flows Jira Issue SYSMLR-114
Issue 18459: Figures 15.5 and 15.6 diagram types Jira Issue SYSMLR-115
Issue 18460: Allocation tabular notation normative? Jira Issue SYSMLR-116
Issue 18461: Allocated notation on object nodes missing from diagram elements table Jira Issue SYSMLR-117
Issue 18462: Libraries package should be named "SysML Model Libraries" Jira Issue SYSMLR-118
Issue 18502: Don't use the optional notation for Pins with Allocation Jira Issue SYSMLR-119
Issue 18503: Diagram show inconsistent data Jira Issue SYSMLR-120
Issue 18525: Clarification required for Copy relationship Jira Issue SYSMLR-121
Issue 18623: Semantics of multiple Dependencies Jira Issue SYSMLR-122
Issue 18659: primitive types in SysML Activities Jira Issue SYSMLR-123
Issue 18676: ProxyPort with FlowProperties Jira Issue SYSMLR-124
Issue 18678: Unclear is StructuredActivityNode owned Actions should be Allocated Jira Issue SYSMLR-125
Issue 18685: Forked association notation ill-formed Jira Issue SYSMLR-126
Issue 18705: SysML 1.3 is incorrect that full ports cannot be behavioral and is inconsistent about what behavioral ports are Jira Issue SYSMLR-127
Issue 18709: The SysML classification of properties is incomplete Jira Issue SYSMLR-128
Issue 18735: About Rate, Continuous and Discrete Jira Issue SYSMLR-129
Issue 18737: What kind of elements can diagrams be for?. Jira Issue SYSMLR-130
Issue 18758: Allow the equal symbol, =, without guillemets as an alternative diagram notation for SysML binding connectors Jira Issue SYSMLR-131
Issue 18783: SysML says nothing about how to deal with multiplicity for flow properties matching Jira Issue SYSMLR-132
Issue 18805: SysML Issues on Itemp Property values in an IBD Jira Issue SYSMLR-133
Issue 18876: Pull semantics for flow properties Jira Issue SYSMLR-134
Issue 18877: Depletive/non-depletive semantics of ReadStructuralFeatureActions on FlowProperties Jira Issue SYSMLR-135
Issue 18907: Flow property description: incorrect wording (§9.3.2.7) Jira Issue SYSMLR-136
Issue 18909: Proxy port “complete” specification (§ 9.3.2.12): Jira Issue SYSMLR-137
Issue 18952: Semantics consistency of conjugated behavior ports Jira Issue SYSMLR-138
Issue 18953: Semantics clarification for removing a value from an out Flow Property Jira Issue SYSMLR-139
Issue 18993: proxy and full port notation change request Jira Issue SYSMLR-140
Issue 19062: Deprecate Unit and QuantityKind stereotypes in 1.4 Jira Issue SYSMLR-141
Issue 19123: Update SysML references to UML model library StandardProfileL2 Jira Issue SYSMLR-142
Issue 19134: Convention for enumeration not used for ControlValue Jira Issue SYSMLR-143
Issue 19284: Update to Trace Relationship’ Jira Issue SYSMLR-144
Issue 19286: Abstract syntax for the initial values Jira Issue SYSMLR-145
Issue 19321: URI for the SysML Profile given in section E.3 is wrong Jira Issue SYSMLR-146
Issue 19326: classifierBehaviorProperty and adjunctProperty notation Jira Issue SYSMLR-147
Issue 19328: Need clarification about possible configurations of the new ports introduced in SysML 1.3 and of their semantics Jira Issue SYSMLR-148
Issue 19412: Can a SysML Full Port be typed by a ValueType? Jira Issue SYSMLR-149
Issue 19489: [SysML] Semantic variation points Jira Issue SYSMLR-150
Issue 19551: reception compartment not addressed Jira Issue SYSMLR-153
Issue 19578: Need to define Requirement Relationship compartment Jira Issue SYSMLR-154
Issue 19591: Precise expression of requirements Jira Issue SYSMLR-155
Issue 19595: ElementGroup cannot be source or target of a dependency Jira Issue SYSMLR-156
Issue 19623: More than one View() operation allowed Jira Issue SYSMLR-158
Issue 19644: Inherit from a conjugated interface block Jira Issue SYSMLR-159
Issue 19757: RequirementRelated is present in the summary but no more in the document Jira Issue SYSMLR-163
Issue 19764: Requirement ID should be immutable Jira Issue SYSMLR-165
Issue 19783: Expand use of rake symbol for all decompositions Jira Issue SYSMLR-166
Issue 19813: NestedConnectorEnd violates UML "roles" constraint Jira Issue SYSMLR-167
Issue 19817: Spec document inconsistent with Normative profile XMI file ptc/2013-12-11 Jira Issue SYSMLR-169
Issue 19836: Activity should not be included as graphical node included in activity diagrams Jira Issue SYSMLR-178
Issue 19857: Satisfy, Verify and DeriveReqt could be used with non-requirement elements Jira Issue SYSMLR-208
Issue 19858: layout error for compartment name Jira Issue SYSMLR-209
Issue 19859: Does the objectiveFunction stereotype generalizes the ConstraintBlock stereotype or UML::property? Jira Issue SYSMLR-210
Issue 19862: Missing one right parenthesis in the constraint equation Jira Issue SYSMLR-211

Issue 10047: SysML: Protocol State Machines needed (sysml-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The current document eliminates Protocol State Machines on the grounds of simplification. See Section 13

 

However, this leaves a hole in the capabilities of SysML. Currently, SysML supports UML interfaces (provided and required), which can’t have state machines to define them.

 

It is an important part of designing systems interfaces (SE terminology) to define the details of the (UML/SysML) Interfaces. These details include the allowed ordering of messages. As we are not allowed to use behavior state machines and the standard solution, that of, protocol state machines are not included, we can’t properly do interface engineering within SysML

 

If some other solution/work-around is proposed (which I don’t recommend) the explanation of how to accomplish this should be in the spec.  

 


Resolution: Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1 RTF: This issue was previously deferred by the FTF with the following discussion comment: Discussed on conference call during Anaheim Meeting (Sept 26, 2006). It was deemed that this would introduce new content into SysML 1.0 . It was felt that there is a need for experience in SysML prior to making such a change or extension. Deferred for future consideration. No additional resolution was reached by the current RTF. This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 31, 2006: received issue

Discussion:
Discussion:
Discussed on conference call during Anaheim Meeting (Sept 26, 2006). It was deemed that this would introduce new content into SysML 1.0 . It was felt that there is a need for experience in SysML prior to making such a change or extension. Deferred for future consideration.

Disposition:	Deferred


Issue 10048: SysML: UML Qualifieed Associations (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
SysML currently discards UML 2.1 qualified associations (see 8.3.1.4) as not being of interest to the SE community.

 

I contest this on two grounds – 

            1) a. Qualifiers are used expressively and meaningfully to explain domain situations that have nothing to do with data modeling. For example, when I say a baseball roster had 9 members and that there are 9 positions to fill, I am not explicitly saying that there is one person per position. Qualifiers allow me to clarify this piece of the real world and would be very useful on a BDD. 

               b. Qualifiers are also used idiomatically with generalization discriminators to tie parallel generalization structures together. They are capable of modeling situations, such as when there are many types of missiles, each with their own launcher type. 

               c. Qualifiers are also used to indicate addressing schemes and mechanisms. For example, by placing an operation/activity etc that returns a type in a qualifier, one can specify the mapping or prioritization /ordering algorithm. Specifying such algorithms may be the SE’s job, when it part of an equation report, algorithm development. This could fit into SysML and support allocation to functional (target prioritization scheme, best antenna-signal function) and structural components (packet routers). This is fully in the spirit of what practicing SEs do and would round out the capability of SysML.[Note that this capability could be delayed for a later SysML, the other parts should be addressed sooner] 

            2) Qualifiers appear to be part of small part of UML that is incompatible with use with a SysML strict profile mechanism. Imagine a model done in strict SysML, then brought into UML, where a qualifier is added to the relationship, changing the multiplicity at one end. If the model is then brought back into (strict) SysML and the qualifier is then dropped, the multiplicity cannot be automatically restored (or determined from the model). Because of this, qualifiers must be forbidden in UML in such contexts

Resolution: This issue was previously deferred by the SysML FTF with the following discussion from the resolution at that time: Qualified associations were excluded in SysML V1.0 as part of the general goal to subset the amount of UML that a system engineer must understand for system modeling. If usage of SysML V1.0 indicates significant modeling gaps from the exclusion of qualified associations, their inclusion can be reconsidered in future versions of SysML. Experience is still needed to determine if there are alternative ways to model cases such as those cited without the complexity of the added notations and rules for qualified associations. There has been insufficient new input to the current RTF to reconsider the previous resolution at this time. Disposition: Deferred This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF. Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1 RTF: This issue was previously deferred by the SysML FTF with the following discussion from the resolution at that time: Qualified associations were excluded in SysML V1.0 as part of the general goal to subset the amount of UML that a system engineer must understand for system modeling. If usage of SysML V1.0 indicates significant modeling gaps from the exclusion of qualified associations, their inclusion can be reconsidered in future versions of SysML. Experience is still needed to determine if there are alternative ways to model cases such as those cited without the complexity of the added notations and rules for qualified associations. There has been insufficient new input to the current RTF to reconsider the previous resolution at this time. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text: This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Actions taken:
July 31, 2006: received issue

Discussion:
Discussion:
Qualified associations were excluded in SysML V1.0 as part of the general goal to subset the amount of UML that a system engineer must understand for system modeling. If usage of SysML V1.0 indicates significant modeling gaps from the exclusion of qualified associations, their inclusion can be reconsidered in future versions of SysML. Experience is still needed to determine if there are alternative ways to model cases such as those cited without the complexity of the added notations and rules for qualified associations.
Disposition:	Deferred


Issue 10058: SysML: Generalizing Activites (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive. Click here for this issue's attachments.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Section 11 should show an example of generalization/specialization of Activiites when then are being shown in a bdd.


Resolution: Discussion: This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF. Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1 RTF: Deferred so that a UML issue can be addressed (that activity regions should be redefinable). Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text: Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1 RTF: Deferred so that a UML issue can be addressed (that activity regions should be redefinable). This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Actions taken:
July 31, 2006: received issue

Discussion:
Resolution:
Generalization / specialization of activities is not mentioned in the rest of the document, has not come up in discussion of SysML application, requires more explanation.  Defer until the need becomes clearer.

Disposition:	Deferred


Issue 10410: Section: 9.3.2.5 FlowPort (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The relationship between a behavioral flow port and parameters is marked as a semantic variation point. Isn't it possible to specify a concrete relationship here? The specification proposes a binding relationship. What is a binding relationship? It is not known in SysML or UML. 

Resolution: Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1 RTF: We did not reach an agreement on this during our discussions for the initial submission – it is too complicated for the RTF. We recommend to bring this issue to the next version of SysML. This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 13, 2006: received issue

Discussion:
We did not reach an agreement on this during our discussions for the initial submission - it is too complicated for the RTF. We recommend to bring this issue to the next version of SysML.	
Disposition:	Deferred                            This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1
RTF:
We did not reach an agreement on this during our discussions for the
initial submission – it is too complicated for the RTF. We recommend to
bring this issue to the next version of SysML.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 10500: Section: Figure 14.2 (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The figure and added text describing the use of <<extend>> is still unclear and inconsistent. As agreed, converting Start the vehicle to an <<include>> and Park to <<extend>> will correct the confusion and make the added text unnecessary. 

Resolution: This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 4, 2006: received issue

Discussion:
Unable to be addressed in time.
Disposition:	Deferred                                   Discussion:
This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1
RTF:
Unable to be addressed in time.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 10642: Timing diagrams (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary:
Timing diagrams are missing in SysML. They are an important diagram for several engineering disciplines. For example I know a project from the automotive/robotic domain that won't use SysML, because of the missing timing diagrams. Timing diagrams will improve the acceptance of SysML in engineering disciplines. 

Resolution: Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1 RTF: Much useful discussion about the usefulness of timing diagrams occurred within the RTF. Their addition could be considered in future versions of SysML. This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 5, 2007: received issue

Discussion:
 Discussion:
This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1
RTF:
Much useful discussion about the usefulness of timing diagrams occurred
within the RTF. Their addition could be considered in future versions of
SysML.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 11011: Block namespace compartment: Are external relationships allowed (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The block namespace compartment shows a bdd of the elements that are part 
of the namespace of the block.


Is it allowed to show relationships from a block inside that compartment to
a external block? The relationship could be in the model, but can I show it
in the diagram?


I think it should be allowed. I don't see any problems.


Resolution: Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1 RTF: There is nothing stated in the specification that disallows associations being shown that would cross a namespace compartment boundary, and as the issue notes allowing this doesn’t seem to raise any problems. How to specify that such cases are permitted, however, along with many other variations of concrete syntax, is being left for consideration in future updates of the specification. Further discussion of this issue during the SysML 1.3 RTF noted that the following statement under the section "Namespace Compartment" in 8.3.1.1 Block Definition Diagram is incorrect: "This compartment may contain any of the graphical elements of a block definition diagram." Under the UML metamodel, only nested classifiers can be nested in the namespace of a class, which Block is based on. These could presumably include associations as well as other nonblock classifiers such as Actor, but they do not include Package, which is one of the elements permitted on a block definition diagram. These additional issues should probably be addressed in any future clarifications of the namespace compartment, but the RTF decided to defer any resolution within SysML 1.3. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 16, 2007: received issue

Discussion:
There is nothing stated in the specification that disallows associations being shown that would cross a namespace compartment boundary, and as the issue notes allowing this doesn't seem to raise any problems. How to specify that such cases are permitted, however, along with many other variations of concrete syntax, is being left for consideration in future updates of the specification.
Disposition:	Deferred                                Discussion:
This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1
RTF:
There is nothing stated in the specification that disallows associations
being shown that would cross a namespace compartment boundary, and
as the issue notes allowing this doesn’t seem to raise any problems. How
to specify that such cases are permitted, however, along with many other
variations of concrete syntax, is being left for consideration in future
updates of the specification.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 11117: Section: 12. Interactions (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Eldad Palachi, eldad.palachi(at)il.ibm.com)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
I was unable to find a standard way to describe a flow of data in sequence diagrams. Currently sequence diagrams only deal with flow of control by exchanging messages. We believe that it would be very useful to also have a way for describing data flow as part of the interaction scenario

Resolution: Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1 RTF: Multiple suggestions to address this issue were discussed by the RTF, but a final resolution was not reached. This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 4, 2007: received issue

Discussion:
Multiple suggestions to address this issue were discussed by the RTF, but a final resolution was not reached.
Disposition:	Deferred                                              Discussion:
This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1
RTF:
Multiple suggestions to address this issue were discussed by the RTF, but
a final resolution was not reached.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 11276: Issue: Nested connector ends (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Nested connector ends:


"Connectors may be drawn that cross the boundaries of nested properties to connect to properties within them."


That's an important feature of SysML. 


"The ability to connect to nested properties within a containing block requires that multiple levels of decomposition be
shown on the same diagram."


I think that's a problem in practice. Often I don't want to see the nested properties in the diagram.
I propose to add a notational feature to show that a connector end is connected with a nested property without
showing that property.


For example we could draw the connector to the border of the surrounding property and attach the stereotype <<nested>>
as a short form of <<nestedConnectorEnd>> and optionally the propertyPath. 


What do you think?

Resolution: This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 10, 2007: received issue

Discussion:
Discussion of this issue was still in progress at the end of the current RTF. The issue is being deferred so the discussion can continue under any future revision process.
Disposition:	Deferred                                   Discussion:
This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1
RTF:
Discussion of this issue was still in progress at the end of the current RTF.
The issue is being deferred so the discussion can continue under any
future revision process.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 11333: BindingConnector (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA (Dr. Sebastien Gerard, sebastien.gerard(at)cea.fr)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The semantics of the Binding Connector is described as follow :

“8.3.2.10 Binding Connector

Description 

A Binding Connector is a connector which specifies that the properties at both ends of the connector have equal values. If the properties at the ends of a binding connector are typed by a DataType or ValueType, the connector specifies that the instances of the properties must hold equal values, recursively through any nested properties within the connected properties. If the properties at the ends of a binding connector are typed by a Block, the connector specifies that the instances of the properties must refer to the same block instance.”

 

So, I understand that definition if the multiplicity of the properties linked by the binding connector is 0..1 or 1. But what happen is the upper bound of the multiplicity is greater than 1? If for example, it is 0..* ? And moreover, what happen when the multiplicity of both property is different, as for example on one end 0..1 and on the other end 1 ? In this case, as according to the previous definition, the value of both properties has to be equal, what happen to the value of the proiperty which multiplicity is 1 when the other property is not yet defined?


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 28, 2007: received issue

Discussion:
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 11493: Lack of notation for units and dimensions on values. (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Lack of notation for units and dimensions on values. There are no samples at all

Resolution: Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1 RTF: As part of alignment efforts between SysML and MARTE, the MARTE Value Specification Language (VSL) continues to offer one possible longterm direction for expressions and other, more complete forms of value specifications that might be considered in future revisions of SysML. Until MARTE VSL or other value specification languages can be considered in more detail, and until more experience is gained with the new capabilities included by the "Model Library for Quantities, Units, Dimensions, and Values (QUDV)," in Annex C, this issue is being deferred. Additional work on the QUDV model, including its alignment with ISO 80000, continues to offer potential solutions to these notational needs within both SysML and MARTE. Notations within value expressions, however, went beyond the scope that was considered for inclusion within SysML 1.3. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 19, 2007: received issue

Discussion:
Discussion of this issue was still in progress at the end of the current RTF. The issue is being deferred so the discussion can continue under any future revision process.
Disposition:	Deferred                                   Discussion:
Issue 12219, “suggest need Quantity stereotype and definition,” is proposing
changes to the current SysML support of value types with units and dimensions
(and is renaming the current Dimension stereotyp to QuantityKind). These
changes provide an important foundation for supporing notations on values,
including a distinction between symbols for units vs. unit names. A new
normative Annex C.5 also defines a Quantity value type which could be used to
carry values that include the identification of a dynamically selected unit within
the value itself. Issue 12219, however, does not change the underlying structure
of value types or provide new forms of value specfications.
As part of alignment efforts between SysML and MARTE, the MARTE Value
Specification Language (VSL) continues to offer a possible long-term direction for
expressions and other, more complete forms of value specifications that might be
considered in future revisions of SysML. Until MARTE VSL can be considered in
more detail, and more experience is gained with the new capabilities included in
Issue 12219, this issue is being deferred.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 11496: It is not allowed in UML to display stereotypes of related elements (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive. Click here for this issue's attachments.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Stereotypes, tags and constraints are displayed on elements that can’t have such stereotypes applied. It is not allowed in UML to display stereotypes of related elements (secondary references):
a) Stereotypes
  i. Block stereotypes are displayed on parts 
  ii. Block stereotypes are displayed on object nodes 
  iii. Parameter stereotypes are displayed on ActivityParameterNode 
  iv. Behavior or operation stereotypes are displayed on CallActions
b) Tags
  i. Block allocations are displayed on parts 
  ii. Units and dimensions shall be possible to show on properties and slots, but these tags are owned in Valuetype
c) Constraints
  i. Constraints of ConstraintBlock are displayed on constraintProperty (B.30) 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 19, 2007: received issue

Discussion:
Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1
RTF:
Some of the cases raised by this issue may be covered by the resolution
for Issue 11819, Internal Block Diagram Extensions, including the
discussion within that resolution. Other cases raised by this issue, may
not be fully covered by that issue or may require additional mechanisms
for the requested display capability. The issue is being deferred so that all
these cases can continue to be explored.
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 11499: Parts are added directly into package (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Parts are added directly into package. B27 - <<moe>> element that is a part is displayed inside of a package <<view>> 

Resolution: This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 19, 2007: received issue

Discussion:
Unable to be addressed in time.
Disposition:	Deferred                                Discussion:
This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1
RTF:
Unable to be addressed in time.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 11627: SysML: Interaction diagram and Data-based comm of SysML (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA (Dr. Sebastien Gerard, sebastien.gerard(at)cea.fr)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Here is a question on the usage of sequence diagrams with SysML, more specially with blocks that communicate via flow ports.

 

Within UML, Message is associated with signature of either a Signal or an Operation (see constraint 2 on Message meta class, p. 492 of the UML2 superstructure spec.).

 

In SysML, blocks introduce an alternative for communication between blocks w.r.t. to usual UML2 composite structures: flow ports are basically dedicated to support data-based communication between blocks in contrast of UML2 that does not support such kind of communication between composite structures.

In this case, a Message within an interaction should be able to refer either a DataType, a Block, a ValueType if the communication happen between two atomic flow ports, or to a FlowSpecification if the communication happen between two non-atomic port.

 

I did not see anything related this issue within the SysML spec. Do I miss something or is it something missing in the SysML doc?


Resolution: This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 22, 2007: received issue

Discussion:
Unable to be addressed in time.
Disposition:	Deferred                                Discussion:
This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1
RTF:
Unable to be addressed in time.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 11653: Section: 5.3 (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
SysML needs the capability to interchange diagrams in addition to model data. The concrete syntax complliance should include a requirement to comply with diagram interchange in a similar way that the infrastructure specifciation does. The following is included in section 2.3 of the Infrastructure Spec under Concrete Syntax Compliance: - the ability to output diagrams and to read in diagrams based on the XMI schema defined by the Diagram Interchange specification for notation at that level. This option requires abstract syntax and concrete syntax compliance. The proposal is to add the same requirement as above to section 5.3 as a second bullet under the concrete syntax compliance.

Resolution: This issue was previously deferred by the SysML 1.1 RTF, which noted: Diagram interchange is strongly desirable but is not yet supported among current tools. A new “Diagram Definition RFP” issued by OMG could offer additional support for concrete syntax compliance including interchange. Diagram compliance issues can be considered in future updates of the specification. Finalization is still in progress for the specification submitted in response Diagram Definition RFP. New forms of support for diagram definition and interchange are included by this specification. The addition of diagram interchange compliance to SysML should be reassessed once these these capabilities have been finalized, and perhaps applied to other specifications such as UML. Additional compliance points for diagram syntax and interchange could be added by either a future SysML revision. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 19, 2007: received issue

Discussion:
Diagram interchange is strongly desirable but is not yet supported among current tools.  A new "Diagram Definition RFP" issued by OMG could offer additional support for concrete syntax compliance including interchange.  Diagram compliance issues can be considered in future updates of the specification.
Disposition:	Deferred                                        Discussion:
This issue was previously deferred by the SysML 1.1 RTF, which noted:
Diagram interchange is strongly desirable but is not yet supported among
current tools. A new “Diagram Definition RFP” issued by OMG could offer
additional support for concrete syntax compliance including interchange.
Diagram compliance issues can be considered in future updates of the
specification.
Submission and adoption are still in progress for the Diagram Definition RFP.
New forms of support for diagram definition and interchange may be adopted by
OMG as a result of this process. The addition of diagram interchange compliance
to SysML should be reassessed once these future directions become clear.
Additional compliance points for diagram syntax and interchange could be added
by either a future RTF or RFP submission process.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 12123: Inferred Allocation on Allocate Activity Partitions (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
When an allocation relationship is depicted on an activity diagram using Allocate Activity Partitions, it is unclear if the allocation relationship is from the Action Node to the Part represented by the partition (direct allocation), or from the Activity typing the Action Node to the Block typing the Part (Inferred allocation). Since in practice it has become necessary to represent both conditions, this portion of the SysML specification should be modified to incorporate some graphical indication to distinguish them.

Resolution: This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 2, 2008: received issue

Discussion:
Discussion:
This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 12125: Item Flows on Activity Diagrams (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Since ItemFlow is a stereotype of InformationFlow, it can be related to an ActivityEdge and depicted on an Activity Diagram. At least one tool has provided this capability. Clarify the use of ItemFlows on Activity Diagrams in the specification: If this is not desirable, then an additional constraint must be added to ItemFlows to prevent it. Personally, I like the idea of representing ItemFlows on ObjectFlows, but the semantic meaning of this representation is unclear. If this is retained, then it should be discussed in both chapter 9 and chapter 11.

Resolution: Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1 RTF: The UML metamodel shows information flows can be realized by activity edges, and that realization of information flow is intended to link more abstract models to more concrete (realizing) ones in ways determined by the modeler. Agreeing on the specific ways this is done with realizing activity edges and whether to standardize those in SysML will take more time. This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 2, 2008: received issue

Discussion:
The UML metamodel shows information flows can be realized by activity edges, and that realization of information flow is intended to link more abstract models to more concrete (realizing) ones in ways determined by the modeler.  Agreeing on the specific ways this is done with realizing activity edges and whether to standardize those in SysML will take more time. 
Disposition:	Deferred                                Discussion:
This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1
RTF:
The UML metamodel shows information flows can be realized by activity
edges, and that realization of information flow is intended to link more
abstract models to more concrete (realizing) ones in ways determined by
the modeler. Agreeing on the specific ways this is done with realizing
activity edges and whether to standardize those in SysML will take more
time.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 12131: 10.3.1.2 Parametric Diagram (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Dr. Darren R.C. Kelly, nobody)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
10.3.1.2 Parametric Diagram: clarify applicability of square box notation to constraint parameters (or otherwise) SysML1.0, 10.3.1.2 Parametric Diagram: 'Small square box notation for an internal property A value property may optionally be shown by a small square box, with the name and other specifications appearing in a text string close to the square box. The text string for such a value property may include all the elements that could ordinarily be used to declare the property in a compartment of a block, including an optional default value. The box may optionally be shown with one edge flush with the boundary of a containing property. Placement of property boxes is purely for notational convenience, for example to enable simpler connection from the outside, and has no semantic significance. If a connector is drawn to a region where an internal property box is shown flush with the boundary of a containing property, the connector is always assumed to connect to the innermost property.' It is not clear whether 'value property' here is meant to refer to a constraint parameter. Also, the term 'internal property' does not exclude, for example, nested constraints, leaving open the possibility of drawing nested constraint properties using square box notation, which is surely not intended. The following suggests that only constraint parameters - not value properties - are intended: SysML1.0, , 10.3.2.1 ConstraintBlock: '[1] A constraint block may not own any structural or behavioral elements beyond the properties that define its constraint parameters, constraint properties that hold internal usages of constraint blocks, binding connectors between its internally nested constraint parameters, constraint expressions that define an interpretation for the constraint block, and general-purpose model management and crosscutting elements.' Rewrite SysML1.0, 10.3.1.2 Parametric Diagram, replacing all references to 'value property' and 'internal property' with 'constraint parameter': 'Small square box notation for a constraint parameter A constraint parameter may optionally be shown by a small square box, with the name and other specifications appearing in a text string close to the square box. The text string for such a constraint parameter may include all the elements that could ordinarily be used to declare the property in a compartment of a block, including an optional default value. The box may optionally be shown with one edge flush with the boundary of a containing property. Placement of constraint parameter boxes is purely for notational convenience, for example to enable simpler connection from the outside, and has no semantic significance. If a connector is drawn to a region where a constraint parameter box is shown flush with the boundary of a containing property, the connector is always assumed to connect to the constraint parameter.' 

Resolution: This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 2, 2008: received issue

Discussion:
Discussion:
This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 12144: Annex B / B.4.8.3 Activity Diagram (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Dr. Darren R.C. Kelly, nobody)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
B.4.8.3 Activity Diagram (EFFBD): refers to allocations to parts instead of blocks SysML1.0: 'B.4.8.3 Activity Diagram (EFFBD) - Acceleration (detail) Figure B.35 shows the ProvidePower activity, using the decomposed activities and objectFlows from Figure B.34. It also uses AllocateActivityPartitions and an allocation callout to explicitly allocate activities and an object flow to parts in the PowerSubsystem block.' In fact the AllocateActivityPartitions in Figure B.35 represent blocks, not part Properties typed by blocks.

Resolution: This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 2, 2008: received issue

Discussion:
Discussion:
This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 12145: Annex B / Figure B.10 (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Dr. Darren R.C. Kelly, nobody)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Figure B.10: justify/clarify 'StartVehicle' from outside in terms of UML Please clarify how UML4SysML supports the drawing of a 'StartVehicle' message from the boundary of a ref Interaction.

Resolution: This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 2, 2008: received issue

Discussion:
Discussion:
This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 12146: Annex B / Figure B.9 (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Dr. Darren R.C. Kelly, nobody)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Figure B.9: clarify turnIgnitionToStart message on driver:Driver Is it supposed to be a message to self ? If so please include message to self path, otherwise explain,

Resolution: This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 2, 2008: received issue

Discussion:
Discussion:
This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 12147: Annex B / Figure B27 (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Dr. Darren R.C. Kelly, nobody)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary:
Figure B.27: <<view>> Package "steals ownership" of MOEs, Actor, UseCase and Requirement Severity Critical since there is currently no sensible way to implement <<view>> in tools ! In Figure B.27 - Establishing a Performance View of the User Model It is not at all clear how the MOEs, Actor, UseCase and requirement should be shown as directly within the view without the view package "stealing ownership". Appears to break constraint: '7.3.2.4 View [1] A view can only own element import, package import, comment, and constraint elements.' See also example images in Magicdraw UML SysML Plugin at: http://school.nomagicasia.com/node/127 http://school.nomagicasia.com/files/images/Figure%20B.27%20-%20Establishing%20a%20Performance%20View%20of%20the%20User%20Model.png Note that this relates to:: Issue 11500: <<view>> as Package extension is very bad idea (sysml-rtf), No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus@magicdraw.com nerijus@nomagic.com) '<<view>> as Package extension is very bad idea. Package is used for ownership, so it is not possible to show the same elements in different packages (as different point of view)' 

Resolution: This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 2, 2008: received issue

Discussion:
Discussion:
This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 12152: Annex B / Figure B.35 (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Dr. Darren R.C. Kelly, nobody)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Figure B.35: prefer <<continuous>> pins over contrived placement of ObjectNodes on border of swimlanes Placement of ObjectNodes on boundaries of swimlanes is contrived and graphically unstable. Prefer typed output/input Pin pairs on CallBehaviorActions corresponding to Parameters. TODO: alternative diagram with pins for resolution. See also: http://school.nomagicasia.com/node/138 http://school.nomagicasia.com/files/images/Figure%20B.35%20-%20Detailed%20Behavior%20Model%20for%20Provide%20Power%20(with%20Swimlane%20Allocation).png 

Resolution: This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 2, 2008: received issue

Discussion:
Discussion:
This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 12154: Annex B / Figure B.38 (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Dr. Darren R.C. Kelly, nobody)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Figure B.38: property names of p:[PowerSubsystem] inconsistent w.r.t. other figures Figure B.38 gives p:[PowerSubsystem] with parts: em: [ElectricMotor] t: [Transmission] ice: [InternalCombustionEngine] Figure 9.3 shows PowerSubsystem with parts: trsm: Transmission ice: InternalCombustionEngine (ecu:PowerControlUnit) (epc: ElectricalPowerController) Figure 9.6 IBD shows PowerSubsystem with parts: trsm: Transmission ice: InternalCombustionEngine (ecu:PowerControlUnit) (epc: ElectricalPowerController) Figure 15.10 IBD shows PowerSubsystem with parts: trsm: Transmission ice: InternalCombustionEngine emg:ElectricalMotorGenerator (ecu:PowerControlUnit) (epc: ElectricalPowerController) (can:CAN_Bus) Figure B.18 BDD shows PowerSubsystem with parts: trsm: Transmission ice: InternalCombustionEngine em: ElectricalMotorGenerator pcu:PowerControlUnit (epc: ElectricalPowerController) .. For consistency Figure B.38 should show p:[PowerSubsystem] with parts: emg: [ElectricMotor] (not 'em') trsm: [Transmission] (not 't') ice: [InternalCombustionEngine] Also, Figure B.18 should show PowerSubsystem with part: ecu:PowerControlUnit Visit also analysis at: http://school.nomagicasia.com/node/149 

Resolution: This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 2, 2008: received issue

Discussion:
Discussion:
This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 12160: Annex B, Figure B.29 (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Dr. Darren R.C. Kelly, nobody)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
In Figure B.29 'delta-t' is shown with solid-line (AggregationKind 'composite'), it should be shown with a dashed line (AggregationKind 'none') to be consistent with Figure B.26 BDD for EconomyContext.

Resolution: This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 6, 2008: received issue

Discussion:
Discussion:
This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 12255: Section: Generalization of stereotyped elements (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Critical
Summary:
The generalization of model elements, e.g. blocks, does only affect the instances (from Generalization definition: Each instance of the specific classifier is also an indirect instance of the general classifier.). Doesn't that mean that stereotypes of a block and it's properties are not inherited by sub-blocks? If yes all informations about flow ports, units and so on get lost. They are not inherited by the sub-blocks. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 2, 2008: received issue

Discussion:
There is still a need to cover additional cases in which stereotype applications on
SysML blocks, properties, and other model elements should be inherited, but no
proposed resolution on this issue was voted on during the schedule of the SysML
1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 12366: Figure B.34 and Figure B.35 (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Dr. Darren R.C. Kelly, nobody)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
FigureB34 shows an Activity decomposition with: * an <<activity>> ControlElectricPower owning part Property 'elecDrivePower:ElecPower'. * an <<activity>> ProvideElectricPower without any owned part Properties. FigureB35 shows: * an Action 'a3:ControlElectricPower' with outgoing ObjectFlow to ObjectNode '<<continuous>> driveCurrent' * an Action 'a4:ProvideElectricPower' with outgoing ObjectFlow to ObjectNode '<<continuous>> elecDrivPower' The translation of ObjectFlows in FigureB35 to part Properties in the Activity decomposition FigureB34 is thus inconsistent.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 1, 2008: received issue

Discussion:
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 13152: SysML: Align SysML Activities with Foundational UML (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
SysML: Align SysML Activities with Foundational UML

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 11, 2008: received issue

Discussion:
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 13153: SysML: Activity Properties should be accessible in Activity diagrams for decision making (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
SysML: Activity Properties should be accessible in Activity diagrams for decision making

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 11, 2008: received issue

Discussion:
This will be addressed by examples for ReadSelfAction in a future UML.
ReadSelf action has no inputs and one output. When used in an activity that is
not owned by a class, it returns an object representing the execution of the
activity that started the action. This object can be given as input to the actions
that access property values.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 13154: SysM:L: Operations on Activities need to be callable (e.g., start, restart, cancel) (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
SysM:L: Operations on Activities need to be callable (e.g., start, restart, cancel)

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 11, 2008: received issue

Discussion:
This will be addressed by examples for ReadSelfAction in a future UML.
ReadSelf action has no inputs and one output. When used in an activity that is
not owned by a class, it returns an object representing the execution of the
activity that started the action. This object can be given as the target input to
CallOperationAction.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 13177: Requirements interchange issue (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: ProSTEP iViP Association (Dr. Steven Vettermann, steven.vettermann(at)prostep.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Information for facilitating the partner integration within the specification and requirements definition process (requirements interchange) are missing (e.g. meta information like version, access rights). 


Remark: There is a specification already addressing this topic, the Requirements Interchange Format (RIF). It is available for download as ProSTEP iViP Recommendation PSI 6 at www.prostep.org. This specification was introduced to the SE DSIG by Rupert Wiebel from HOOD (a paper is available) and presented by Dr. Steven Vettermann from ProSTEP iViP and discussed at the ManTIS meeting on December 11th.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 19, 2008: received issue

Discussion:
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 13197: Representation of nested object nodes in activity diagrams (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Issue: Representation of nested object nodes in activity diagrams. Discussion: It is desirable to be able to represnt nesting of object nodes on activity diagrams to reflect one or more levels of nested properties of the classifier that types the object node. For example, if water is shown as an object node, and it is desired to refer to the temperature of water, then it should be possible to reflect this property on the activity diagram using the notations that are used on ibd's. In particular, one may want to use either a nested rectangle to represent the property, or the dot notation. Proposed update. In the diagram extensions for activity diagrams in Section 11.3.1.4, add a clarifying statement that nested properties of the classifier that types an object node can be represented on activity diagrams either using the nested rectangle notation or the dot notation similar to the use of nesting on ibd's and parametric diagrams.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 31, 2008: received issue

Discussion:
Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.2
RTF:
Filer’s elaboration:
Intent is to be able to represent object nodes on activity diagrams
with nested properties using either the nested notation or dot
notation. An example where this would be useful is to model the
manufacturing process as a series of assembly steps for an
assembly such as an engine. Assume any given action represents
a step in the process where a partially assembled engine is input
along with another input part such as a cylinder. The output is a
partially assembled engine with the cylinder included. I would like to
highlight the output object node as the engine with the cylinder part
nested in the engine. The intent would be to use the "create"
parameter effect (refer to ParameterEffectKind in UML
superstructure 12.3.4.1, .2 which shows the ParameterEffectKind
as create, read, update, delete or the SysML equivalent of create,
not modify, modify, destroy). In the engine assembly process, the
effect kind would be create indicating the creation of the new
engine assembly with the cylinder included.
SysML 1.3 RTF Disposition: Deferred
OMG Issue No: 13197
Document ptc/2011-08-08 Page 180
The addition of class notation to an activity would not specify that the
output engine has the cylinder, this could only be done by postconditions
on the assembly action/subactivity. It would also be a significant change
to introduce class notations onto the activity diagrams, requiring changes
in vendor implementations. The proposed modification doesn't address
the use case and would require significant changes in implementation.
The issue is deferred for further discussion of other solutions.
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 13219: Section: 8/8.3.2 Inability to efficiently capture datasets (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
There is currently limited ability to capture datasets for selected property values. A simple example is the difficulty in capturing the time histories for the position, velocity, and acceleration properties for two different instances of a vehicle, where the vehicle is a block, and the position, velocity, and acceleration are value properties of vehicle. Another example is the need to capture data such as environmental loads data (e.g. temperature, vibration as a function of freq) which is referenced as part of a requirement.

Resolution: This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 12, 2009: received issue

Discussion:
Proposed resolution: Consider creating a stereotype called a Dataset that enables a user to specify a set of properties and their values as a function of time or other property. The data values can be derived from parametrics or a behavior execution, or pre-specified. The dataset should support data arrays, matrices, etc.


Issue 13259: Requirement constants should be integrated into Model-centric vision of SysmL (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
SysML requirements are now pure text and not completely integrated in to
the model-centric approach


Currenltly requirements are written as 


The top speed of this car shall be greater than 100 mph.


Instead, it should be written as


The top speed of this car shall be greater than <x>.


And there be a compartment of the requirement where the current value of
<x> is given


<x> = 200mph. 


This <x> should be integrated as a design value throughout SysmL and
should be connectable to parmetrics. It should also support dependencies
so that other requirements value's (and block's features) can be
dependent on the value of <x>. Then I can determine all the places in my
system where there is a dependency on <x> and my equations and
constraints are automatically updated. Which in many cases would allow
me to automatically rerun my simulations.


This is an improvement in integrating the model. Currently, with pure
text requirements constants in the requirements are often repeated in
equations, parametrics, constraints, algorithms. This repeating defeats
some of the advantages of model-approach, as they are identical or
related elements that need to be synchronized by hand.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 15, 2009: received issue

Discussion:
Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.2
RTF:
SysML 1.3 RTF Disposition: Deferred
OMG Issue No: 13259
Document ptc/2011-08-08 Page 183
Methods to capture values of requirements properties within a model, and
to allow other parts of a model to depend on these values, are still being
explored. The issue is being deferred to continue consideration of various
options.
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 13261: Binding Relationships require unit conversions (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Binding relationships are used between model element properties and parameter in the constraint blocks, similarly they are used between constraint blocks.

 

These constraint blocks are intended to be reusable. 

 

 

However connecting constraint blocks from different sources does not usually work unless the units are the same. Model element values may also not be using tehehe same units.

 

A reasonable solution is to indicate the scaling factor on the binding relationship. This could be done in several ways. One way would be to indicate a simple assignment equations between the two parameter names. 

 

Currently

 

x----------------------------------Y

 

 

Proposed

 

                    Y=100*x

x-----------------------------------------Y

 

Instead of using a constant 100, we could used a named constant   such as cmPm

 

If both ends of the binding relationship were identically named, we need to add an arrow to indicate the souce and target sidel

 

                         à

                X=cmPM*X

X-----------------------------------------X

 

 This would indicate that the left side  X must be multipled by the cmPm to give the left side x

 

This approach allows us to handle more complex conversions by including the ability to add/sub constants

 

 

         C=5/9*(F-32)

 


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 15, 2009: received issue

Discussion:
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 13263: Support BDD's for State Machines (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
One very powerful organizational technique of SysML is the pairing of definitional diagrams with usage diagrams

 

 

BDD (for Blocks)                               à IBDs

BDD (for Activities)                          à ACTs

BDD (for Constraint Blocks)         à PARs

 

The BDD form identifies the elements (structural, functional, constraint) and the 2nd form assembles the elements using detailed design techniques suitable for the element form.

 

It would be convenient and symmetric to support a similar diagram ppar for State Machnies

 

 

BDD(for States)                                àSTMs

 

In the past, Class diagrams for States (in UML 1.x) were used. However, it appears that UML 2.x has deleted the ability to use inheritance relationships among states. Though we could look to UML to fix this, I believe it is possible to model state->substate relationships as compositions without a change to UML to produce a satisfactory conclusion.  


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 15, 2009: received issue

Discussion:
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 13342: AllocateActivityPartition and UML 2 semantics (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
In Allocations, AllocateActivityPartition, Constraints, the second paragraph says the AllocateActivityPartition stereotype does nopt preserve the semantics of of UML 2 ActivityPartition, and that partitions with AllocateActivityPartition do not have responsibility for invoking the actions in them. I think there is no conflict with UML 2 semantics, because UML 2 ActivityPartition only requires performing the actions to be the responsibility of the element represented by the partiion, not the invoking of the action. This seems compatible with allocation.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 26, 2009: received issue

Discussion:
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 13348: Inability to represent dependent, independent parameters on constraint properties (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Parametrics provide a powerful capability for representing constraints on properties. However, they currently do not allow a modeler to specify or notate dependent and independent parameters on a usage of a constraint property. This will enable the modeler to better express the nature of the constraint in many usage situations. The recommendation is to stereotype constraint parameters so that they can be designated as in, out, or in-out if desired. They can also be left unspecified as they are in the current parametric diagram. Proposed Solution. Add a stereotype called constraint parameter that extends property, with a stereotype property that can be in, out, in-out, or unspecified. Consider including the desctiption in the diagram extension for the parametric diagram in 10.3.1.2, adding the stereotype in 10.3.2, the diagram elements in Table 10.2, and updating the usage example in Fig 10.3.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 26, 2009: received issue

Discussion:
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 13840: Allocations should not generate dependencies (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Airbus Group (Mr. Yves Bernard, )
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Allocations should not generate dependencies The Allocate stereotype extends the Abstraction UML meta-class, which is a Dependency. It is in contradiction with the following description (cf. p133: "This concept requires independent models if “function” (behavior) and “form” (structure)") If we refere to EIA-632 the logical solution that will be allocated to the physical solution only depends from upstream requirements. In some cases, one may have some (upstream) requirements to use a given implementation platform, but this cannot be considered generic and anyway the dependendcy is still on the requirement not directly on the platform. A logical solution makes abstraction of the implementation to focus on issues strictly related to the missions of the system. Then, by definition a logical solution is semantically dependent from the need and not from the implementation. In most times, several logical solutions are possible. Their are more or less effective against each of their requirements, that's why the design work includes tradeoff activities. Saying that a given logical solution is not convenient to be implemented on a given platform doesn't mean that it's not a logical solution to the need. More, the current stereotype implementation biases the impact analysis. The objective of this analysis is to parse the model and to report what model elements should be reviewed (i.e. are potentially impacted) in case of modification of a given model element to preserve the model integrity and consistency. If the platform is modified, what has first to be checked is whether or not the modified elements of the platform can still play the role they have been assigned by the allocation (with the required QoS, etc...). If the answer is "yes", then nothing to do. If the answer is "no", then they are several potential choices: a) if possible modify the allocations only, b) select another logical solution (i.e. modify it) and define the new allocations, b) select another platform and define the new allocations. This is matter of tradeoff. The only point that has always to be checked is the allocations. Then the only "thing" that actually depends on the "from" and "to" sides of an allocation is the allocation itself. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 27, 2009: received issue

Discussion:
Extensive discussion on alternative elements for allocations that do not carry the
impacts of dependencies has occurred within both the SysML 1.2 and 1.3 RTF's,
SysML 1.3 RTF Disposition: Deferred
OMG Issue No: 13840
Document ptc/2011-08-08 Page 191
often as part of alignment discussions with MARTE. Alternative elements for
allocations is a potential priority for SysML 1.4.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 13939: Parsing Text in Requirements (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Parsing Text in Requirements: There is a need to parse the text string in a SysML requirement and create a reference from the parsed text to other model elements or perhaps to a URI. This will enable one to associated additional meaning to selected portions of the text string, such as a particular value, property name, function, or some other feature. A parsed text string which can refer to other elements could be generalized to support other uses within SysML where text is used. In this sense, the proposal could treat this in another chapter such as model elements to make it more generally applicable. One possible approach is to consider a net type called "ParsedText" that has some structure to it, so that the text can be parsed and a reference can be made from the parsed text. The Requirements text property would then be typed by ParsedText instead of String as it currently is.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 27, 2009: received issue

Discussion:
Extensive discussion on this issue occurred during the 1.2 RTF, but not during
the 1.3 RTF. The complete text of a proposed resolution from the 1.2 RTF
discussions was included for future reference in a deferred resolution of this
issue in the 1.2 RTF report.
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 13942: Table 16.2 (top of pg. 146): Trace Dependency concrete syntax diagram incorrect (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NASA (Mr. Jeff A. Estefan, jeffrey.a.estefan(at)jpl.nasa.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Table 16.2 (top of pg. 146): Trace Dependency concrete syntax diagram incorrect. Replace <<requirement>> Client with Named Element (no stereotype). Figure 16.1 (top of pg. 148): Recommend adding Refine stereotype (as specialization of Trace stereotype); otherwise note that it comes directly from UML metaclass rather than as a UML extension. Recommend reordering specializations of trace in alphabetical order on UML class diagram (e.g., Copy, DeriveReq, [Refine], Satisfy, Verify). Section 16.3.2: Should reintroduce Refine relationship description and contraints, even though a UML metaclass and not an extension. It is an important relationship with respect to requirements. Perhaps introduce prior to Sect 16.3. Section 16.3.2.3 (middle of pg. 150): Change cardinality of /derived: Requirement attribute from [0..1] to [*]. Also, add right bracket to cardinality of /master: Requirement attribute. Currently shows as [0..1 with not closing right bracket. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 29, 2009: received issue

Discussion:
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 14055: Proposal to have a stereotype for reference nested property (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Eldad Palachi, eldad.palachi(at)il.ibm.com)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
When one needs to reference a value of a specific property of part in a composition hierarchy in order to bind it to a constraint parameter, one uses the dot notation shown in section 8.3.1.2. (Example: a box labeled myCar.myEngine.currentTemp in a parametric diagram). When such a box is binded to a constraint parameter a nested connector end may be used to reference this property in the context of the composition hierarchy. However this poses a serious implementation issue for tools since until the box is binded it has no real model element behind it, also if one copies this box or the diagram to another hierarchy in the model then the tool has to complicated analysis. We propose to have a stereotype for reference nested property similar to nested connector end in which the path in the composition hirerchy is specified (i.e. propertyPath: Property [1..*] (ordered) - like in section 8.3.2.6). This will make it easier for tools to implement backed by the standard meta-model.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 5, 2009: received issue

Discussion:
Extensive discussion occurred during the SysML 1.3 RTF on the opportunity to
create a common, generalized form of contextualized reference path to address
not only the applications raised by this issue, but to support nested properties as
allocation ends, as constrained elements, to support context-specific initial
values, for contextualized flow definitions, and to replace the current
NestedConnectorEnd. Adopting a common form of reference path is a potential
priority for the SysML 1.4 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 14058: Flow port compatibility with behavior (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Flow port compatibility with behavior. Semantics of flow ports need to be clarified as they relate to behavior. In particular, need to clarify how flow properties are passed to behavior (classifier behavior, owned behavior) including to the parameters of operations and activities.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 7, 2009: received issue

Discussion:
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 14059: Need to have an explicit way to bind flow properties or atomic flow ports to block properties (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Eldad Palachi, eldad.palachi(at)il.ibm.com)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Need to have an explicit way to bind flow properties or atomic flow ports to block properties. Currently section 9.3.2.3 lacks such rules. Such rules would allow a consistent way to relay data via flow ports to the properties of blocks and also would allow a convenient way to transmit values via flow port by changing a value of a property owned by the block.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 8, 2009: received issue

Issue 14575: callout notation issues (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
I'm trying to prepare requirements for "callout" notation changes in MagicDraw SysML diagrams and trying to remove tool-specific notation.
 
The SysML spec says that each allocatedTo or allocatedFrom property will be expressed as «elementType» ElementName. 
It looks simple at a first glance, but later SysML spec is a total mess:
 
"For uniformity, the «elementType» displayed for the /allocatedTo or /allocatedFrom properties should be from the following list, as applicable. Other «elementType» designations may be used, if none of the below apply.
 
 «activity», «objectFlow», «controlFlow», «objectNode» «block», «itemFlow», «connector», «port», «flowPort», «atomicFlowPort», «interface», «value» 
 
Note that the supplier or client may be an Element (e.g., Activity, Block), Property (e.g., Action, Part), Connector, or BehavioralFeature (e.g., Operation). For this reason, it is important to use fully qualified names when displaying / allocatedFrom and /allocatedTo properties. An example of a fully qualified name is the form (PackageName::ElementName.PropertyName). "
 
 
So, looking at the predefined list it is clear that:
For the Activity or other "clean" UML element it is an metaclass name in lowercase.
for let's say ItemFlow or FlowPort is is an stereotype name in lowercase.
That's ok.
 
But what is <<atomicFlowPort>> ? Port with <<flowPort>> stereotype applied which has isAtomic=true.
What is <<value>> ? Property which has Type with  <<ValueType>> stereotype applied.
 
In the example below (Figure 15.4) it has allocation of actions to parts and it uses another one <<elementType>> which is not described - <<part>>.
What is <<part>> ? The Property with AggregationKind = composite?
 
Also, full qualified names and <<elementTypes>> are used incorrectly in this Figure or I don't understand how it should be used.
For example:
<<block>> Block4.Part5 - why it is <<block>>, but not <<part>> ???
<<part>> Part2:Block1 - why part name is before block name? It should be displayed as (PackageName::ElementName.PropertyName) as described above.
 
I believe, all these rules and exceptions should be described somewhere

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 22, 2009: received issue

Discussion:
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 14998: Binding to multiplicity in parametrics (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
In parametrics, one cannot currently bind a constraint parameter in a constraint expression to a multiplity.  For example, one may need to include the number of tires in the constraint expression that constraints braking force. However, if the model includes a Vehicle, composed of Tire with multiplicity 4, one must be able to access the number of tires (i.e. the multiplity) in the expression.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 21, 2010: received issue

Discussion:
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 15003: Do parametric bindings observe derived and read-only properties (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Do parametric bindings observe derived and read-only constraints on properties?

.

In SysML if I bind a read-only property value to a parameter, I would expect that any evaluation of the parametric model would not be able to update the property value. If I wanted to have such a value calculated, I would expect to take off the read-only constraint

 

Similarly, if I bind a derived property value to a parameter, I would expect that any evaluation of the parametric model would not use that value as an input, but only as an output.

 

However, this is answered (and I hope it is answered positively), the SysML specification should clarify this behavior

 


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 22, 2010: received issue

Discussion:
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 15018: SysML 7.3.2.5 Viewpoint (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
SysML 2.2 B

7.3.2.5 Viewpoint

A Viewpoint is a specification of the conventions and rules for constructing and using a view for the purpose of addressing a set of stakeholder concerns. The languages and methods for specifying a view may reference languages and methods in another viewpoint. They specify the elements expected to be represented in the view, and may be formally or informally defined. For example, the security viewpoint may require the security requirements, security functional and physical architecture, and security test cases.

 

How is this done? There are no examples. I see examples of a Viewpoint with a dependency on another Viewpoint, but no languages referencing languages in another viewpoint.

 

Suggest either developing an example or deleting the sentence and adding another one after the next sentence, so it reads. 

 

A Viewpoint is a specification of the conventions and rules for constructing and using a view for the purpose of addressing a set of stakeholder concerns. They specify the elements expected to be represented in the view, and may be formally or informally defined. For example, the security viewpoint may require the security requirements, security functional and physical architecture, and security test cases. A viewpoint may reference another viewpoint to help in the specification.
SysML 2.2 B

7.3.2.5 Viewpoint

A Viewpoint is a specification of the conventions and rules for constructing and using a view for the purpose of addressing a set of stakeholder concerns. The languages and methods for specifying a view may reference languages and methods in another viewpoint. They specify the elements expected to be represented in the view, and may be formally or informally defined. For example, the security viewpoint may require the security requirements, security functional and physical architecture, and security test cases.

 

How is this done? There are no examples. I see examples of a Viewpoint with a dependency on another Viewpoint, but no languages referencing languages in another viewpoint.

 

Suggest either developing an example or deleting the sentence and adding another one after the next sentence, so it reads. 

 

A Viewpoint is a specification of the conventions and rules for constructing and using a view for the purpose of addressing a set of stakeholder concerns. They specify the elements expected to be represented in the view, and may be formally or informally defined. For example, the security viewpoint may require the security requirements, security functional and physical architecture, and security test cases. A viewpoint may reference another viewpoint to help in the specification.

 


 


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 1, 2010: received issue

Discussion:
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 15079: Ability for a binding connector to be typed (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
A binding connector used in parametrics should allow for decomposition via association blocks in a similar way that other connectors support decomposition. The specification currently includes a constraint on Block that precludes this as follows:  “The number of ends of a connector owned by a block must be exactly two. (In SysML, a binding connector is not typed by an association, so this constraint is not implied entirely by the preceding constraint.)”

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 20, 2010: received issue

Discussion:
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 15112: Inheriting Allocations (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The allocated stereotype includes properties «allocatedTo» and «allocatedFrom».  Since these properties are stereotype properties, they are not inherited by the classifiers that they are applied to.  A constraint could be applied to either the allocate or allocated stereotype which would impose that it is automatically applied to all subclasses of the classifier. The issue to be resolved is whether a subclass of a classifier with «allocatedTo» and/or «allocatedFrom»  properties should inherit those properties

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 22, 2009: received issue

Discussion:
This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during
the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 15132: Allocate of Actions or of Activities (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
When a swimlane in an activity diagram has the «allocate» stereotype, it means that the actions within the swimlane are allocated to the structural element in question. How come the examples seem to have the structural compartment of allocate from   ---  «activity» xxx  intead of «action» xxx


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 10, 2010: received issue

Issue 15176: Flow properties and activity paramters (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The SysML flow properties specify elementary flows (nature and direction) that can cross the boundary of a block through a port.


According to the functional approaches of systems engineering, an entering flow when getting over the boundary of a block is handled as an input by at least one function of the block. An outgoing flow getting out the boundary of the same block is produced as an output by at least one function.


Activity diagrams are used for carrying out functional graphs with SysML. Inputs and outputs of SysML activities are specified by parameters. Nevertheless SysML does not seem to provide any mean to relate activity input / output parameters to the flow properties. This entails that the unfortunate SysML developers, after having made careful and strenuous efforts for specifying the block interfaces with flow properties and ports, have no other solution than to redo exactly the same work for specifying the inputs / outputs of the functional architecture as activity parameters (or vice-versa). Moreover, there is no mean to ensure consistency in the SysML model between the flow properties and the activity parameters and neither between the ports and the activity pins.

A solution would be to enable to use flow properties like parameters as activity inputs / outputs.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 16, 2010: received issue

Issue 15293: SysML 1.2 Issue Viewpoint referencing other viewpoints properties (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Page 26 

Original Text

7.3.2.5 Viewpoint

Description 

A Viewpoint is a specification of the conventions and rules for constructing and using a view for the purpose of addressing a set of stakeholder concerns. The languages and methods for specifying a view may reference languages and methods in another viewpoint. They specify the elements expected to be represented in the view, and may be formally or informally defined. For example, the security viewpoint may require the security requirements, security functional and physical architecture, and security test cases

Comment

How is the highlighted sentence done? There are no examples. I see examples of Viewpoint with a dependency on another Viewpoint, but no references for the individual fields (e.g., language and methods). Are the fields populated in an inheritance manner. Can they be overridden? Does it only work if the fields are blank on the dependant Viewpoint?

Type: Clarification

               Add example and clarify rules


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 21, 2010: received issue

Issue 15295: SysML 1.2 Issues: Default <block> stereotype on unlabeled box is not always optimal (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Page 36, 8.3.1.1  Default «block» stereotype on unlabeled box is not always optimal

 

Original Text

Default «block» stereotype on unlabeled box 
If no stereotype keyword appears within a definition box on a block definition diagram (including any stereotype property compartments), then the definition is assumed to be a SysML block, exactly as if the «block» keyword had appeared before the name in the top compartment of the definition. 

Comment

I question whether this is always desirable, e.g.,

1)       if the diagram had the «functional hierarchy» diagram usage stereotype applied, wouldn’t the default be «activity»,

2)       if the containing block is an activity block, wouldn’t  «activity» be the right default

 

Type: Clarification/Fix

               Add sentences that say: If the bdd diagram has a «diagram usage» specified (such as «functional hierarchy»), a different default (such as «activity») can be used. 

 

If the bdd diagram is for an activity block, the default stereotype elements is «activity»

 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 21, 2010: received issue

Issue 15296: SysML 1.2 Issues: DistributedProperties on Activates (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Page 45 Distributed Properties on Activities

Original Text

8.3.2.4 DistributedProperty 

Constraints

[1] The DistributedProperty stereotype may be applied only to properties of classifiers stereotyped by Block or ValueType.

 

Comment

As I read this, on a BDD, if we have activities, the properties of the activities cannot be distributed properties, because activities are not stereotyped as block 

 

Type: Fix

               Rewrite this constraint, 

[1] The DistributedProperty stereotype may be applied only to properties of classifiers stereotyped by Block, Activity, or ValueType.


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 21, 2010: received issue

Issue 15298: Continuous flows in non-streaming situations with >1 multiplicities (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
SysML 1.2 Issues: Continuous flows in non-streaming situations with >1 multiplicities

11.3.2.1 Continuous      

It’s a bit unclear how continuous flows work in non streaming situation, especially with high multiplicities. 

If a continuous flow arrives at a pin with a multiplicity of 2, it would appear that the 1st and 2nd value arriving at the pin would be captured. If the flow is also continuously valued, the two values would be same. The difference between two adjacent samples goes to zero if the delta time between samples goes to zero (assuming differentiability). 

Type: Fix

To make this capability useful, we’ll need to add a sampling rate to be able to use continuous with >1 multiplicity. If we don’t the specification should have a caveat for >1 multiplicity and differentiable input values. 

 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 21, 2010: received issue

Issue 15299: SysML 1.2 Issues: Optional with streaming (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Sysm 1.2 Optional with «streaming»

 

Page 92 

11.3.2.6 Optional

Does optional on an input mean optional to start the activity or optional for the activity to finish? Consider an «optional» streaming input. 

Does optional on an output mean optional to appear at the end of the activity or optional for it ever to appear? Consider an «optional» streaming output..      

We need to have all the possibilities for streaming; it probably should have two multiplicities for each streaming parameter

               Starting Multiplicity:        number of tokens that must appear for the activity to start

               Total Multiplicity:             number of tokens that must appear over the lifetime of the activity

               

               Ending Multiplicity:          number of tokens that must appear at the end of the activity

               Total Multiplicity:             number of tokens that must appear over the lifetime of the activity

 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 21, 2010: received issue

Issue 15683: Figure B.35 object nodes (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Eldad Palachi, eldad.palachi(at)il.ibm.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Annex B, Figure B.35, the object nodes after the decision and before the merge should be removed and the names/types moved to the ProportionPower pins / output parameter node.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 5, 2010: received issue

Issue 15728: SysML Issue based on UML 15369 (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
A new keyword was added for attributes in UML, {id}. This concatenation of all such attributes within a class (block) for an instance must be unique.

While this will mostly be used by database developers, it’s also a domain model analysis property, e.g, Social Security Number for a US citizen, Mac Address, etc.  As such, it may be useful to some SysML modelers.


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 14, 2010: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 15730: SysML Issue representation of properties as associations (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In UML, there appears to be consistent representing of attributes as regular associations from the owning class. SysML, in similar circumstances, represents value properties as composite associations.  We should try to understand what UML is saying (and perhaps push back on them) and consider the value of consistency.


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 14, 2010: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 15875: SysML Issue on Multiplicity of Use Case Communication Associations (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
SysMl does not give any example of using multiplicity on the relationships between actors and use cases. This is part of UML as shown in Figure 16.11. 

Apparently, the "official" interpretation of SysML is that if there is no example, it is not part of SysML. This incompatibility means that standardize training, books, etc, on  Use Cases can not be applied to SysML. And the notation is of value.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 6, 2010: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 15882: SysML primitive value types (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
We have issues with SysML primitive value types -  Real, Integer, Boolean, String etc.


The problem is that these types are not inherited from corresponding UML primitive types - Real, Integer, Boolean, String.
That means, UML tool can't understand, what kind of ValueSpecification should be created for values of properties typed by these value types.
Should it be LiteralString or LiteralInteger or OpaqueExpression? 
Constraints can't check if slot values are compatible with property types, as it is not clear what kind of value specification it should be also.
There are issues in parametrics solving also, as values must be compatible with property types.


I think, SysML primitives must be directly inherited from UML primitives - Real subtype of UML Real,  String subtype of UML String etc.


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 8, 2010: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 15884: Another issue with allocate (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The allocate relationship is defined from client A::part1:P1 to supplier B::part2:P2. I think that’s ok according to the current SysML specification.

However what I need is a allocate relationship defined from myA.part1:P1 to myB.part2:P2, i.e. the allocate relationship should consider the context 

and not be valid in another context.

 

I’ve tried to assign the ownership of the allocate relationship to the TopLevel block which doesn’t work. MagicDraw doesn’t allow blocks to be owner of a allocate.

I’m not sure whether it is a tool issue or if I’ve overseen a constraint. According to the UML metamodel it should be possible. Nevertheless I’m not sure if that’ll solve

my problem.

 

Any ideas?


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 9, 2010: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 15982: Blocks cannot own items flows (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NASA (Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette, nicolas.f.rouquette(at)jpl.nasa.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Blocks cannot own items flows, because UML NameSpace abstractly owns NamedElement.  Consider specializing on blocks to own item flows.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 25, 2011: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 15983: IBD notation doesn't distinguish item properties from connector labels (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Item properties and connector labels both appear in colon notation near the center of an assocation.  How do you tell the difference?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 25, 2011: received issue

Issue 15985: Description of Item Flows (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Description of item flow and its attributes should explain that "assign" means "realization", change "usage" to "instance", and convey items rather than classifiers.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 25, 2011: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 16016: SysML Issue on Refine limitations (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The text description of how the refine relationship can be used disagrees with formal restrictions.

 

On page 126, 2nd paragraph, the text says.

 

“The refine requirement relationship can be used to describe how a model element or set of elements can be used to further refine a requirement. For example, a use case or activity diagram may be used to refine a text-based functional requirement. Alternatively, it may be used to show how a text-based requirement refines a model element. In this case, some elaborated text could be used to refine a less fine-grained model element.”

 

 

This allows a refine relationship to be 

 

[Requirement] ß1..*[Model element] 

 

               Or            

 

[Requirement] à      [Model element]

 

However, Figure 16.1 only has 

                

          /refinedBy:Named Element[*] as property for a Requirement

 

Thus it is not possible to have a requirement refine a model element.

 

This is confirmed by Figure 16.2, which in showing the tags for a NamedElement

Has         /refines Requirement [*]

 

This is confirmed in table 16.2 by only showing paths that allow a NamedElement to refine a requirement (and not the other way around).

 

So problem 1. 

The text and restrictions disagree, fix the text to be as follows, by deleting the last sentence:

 

The refine requirement relationship can be used to describe how a model element or set of elements can be used to further refine a requirement. For example, a use case or activity diagram may be used to refine a text-based functional requirement. Alternatively, it may be used to show how a text-based requirement refines a model element. In this case, some elaborated text could be used to refine a less fine-grained model element.

 

Problem 2

The text indicates the refine relationship may be from a diagram. A diagram is not a metaclass in UML or SysML and cannot participate in this way. Please strike the word “diagram” from the text

 

Final wording

The refine requirement relationship can be used to describe how a model element or set of elements can be used to further refine a requirement. For example, a use case or activity may be used to refine a text-based functional requirement.

 

 

Additional comment.

It’s unclear in these circumstances, to me at least, whether two different use cases that «refine» a requirement are participating in the same refinement relationship or are just stored in a common location in the requirement.


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 9, 2011: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 16042: Item flows can have multiple types but item properties cannot (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Item flows can have multiple types but item properties cannot

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 23, 2011: received issue

Issue 16057: Compartment labelling rules (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Deere & Company (Mr. Roger Burkhart, burkhartrogerm(at)johndeere.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Suggest these compartment rules:


 - Italics
 - Plural
 - All lower case
 - Words separated by spaces

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 11, 2011: received issue

Discussion:
Progress has been made in standardizing on these compartment label rules, but
exceptions still exist in the SysML specification, such as allocatedFrom and
allocatedTo in Chapter 15. This issue is being deferred so further standardization
of conventions on compartment labels can be considered in a future revision of
SysML.
Disposition: Deferred


Issue 16058: Definition of part (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Airbus Group (Mr. Yves Bernard, )
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The current definition of "part" includes
ports.  Is that intended?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 11, 2011: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 16093: Incorrect statement about UML n-aries (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Section 8.3.1.3 (UML Diagram Elements
not Included in SysML Block Definition
Diagrams) says "N-ary associations,
shown in UML by a large open diamond
with multiple branches, can be modeled
by an intermediate block with no loss in
expressive power."  An intermediate
block cannot capture multiplicities that
would be on an the ends of an n-ary
association.  These multiplicities are
for the links from end to end, rather
than from intermediate object to end, as
they would be with an intermediate
object.  However, intermediate blocks
can specify the number of links each end
might participate in for any of the
other n-1 ends, which is not possible
with n-ary associations.  The
expressiveness of n-aries and
intermediate blocks is overlapping,
rather than equivalent. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 22, 2011: received issue

Issue 16112: Where have stereotypes been defined? (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA (Dr. Sebastien Gerard, sebastien.gerard(at)cea.fr)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
in some figures of the examples provided in Annex, some stereotypes are displayed: <<domain>>, <<external>>, <<diagramDescription>>, … and so on. Can someone tell me where these stereotypes have been defined?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 28, 2011: received issue

Issue 16113: parameter of the constraint block StraightLineVehicleDynamics shown in figure B.31 seems to be incomplete (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA (Dr. Sebastien Gerard, sebastien.gerard(at)cea.fr)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
the parameter of the constraint block StraightLineVehicleDynamics shown in figure B.31 seems to be incomplete w.r.t. to figure B.30. Is it ok?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 28, 2011: received issue

Issue 16170: Multiassociation (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA (Dr. Sebastien Gerard, sebastien.gerard(at)cea.fr)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In the spec, it is said that : « Notational and metamodel support for n-ary associations and qualified associations has been excluded from SysML.”.

 

However, as shownin the extract of the table of the SyML symbol, multibranch association are possible:


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 5, 2011: received issue

Issue 16263: Association owning ends (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Associations in SysML should be able to own their ends.  Otherwise modelers can't add an association between blocks in model libraries they do not have permission to modify.  They also cannot create association that are non-navigable in both directions, which might be useful for directing flows across them into flows contained by the association as a block.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 25, 2011: received issue

Issue 16286: TestCase should use PackageMerge (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: KnowGravity Inc. (Mr. Markus Schacher, markus.schacher(at)knowgravity.com)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The stereotype «TestCase» is primarily specified in the UML Testing Profile (UTP) and should not be defined by SysML redundantly (or even inconsistently). Rather it should be separated in a dedicated package in SysML and a PackageMerge be specified. This would properly add the properties of a «TestCase» specified in SysML to the "base" «TestCase» specified in UTP.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 27, 2011: received issue

Issue 16304: Can Enumerations be used on parametric diagrams for typing constraint parameters (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: PTC (Mr. Andreas Korff, akorff(at)ptc.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
when  participating in the discussions on the draft ballot 3 on the SysML 1.3 spec, we observed that there is a need for clarification. The question was about whether Enumerations can be used on parametric diagrams for typing constraint parameters. The spec defines:

 

From 8.3.2.10

SysML defines ValueType as a stereotype of UML DataType to establish a more neutral term for system values that may never be given a concrete data representation. … A SysML ValueType may define its own properties and/or operations, just as for a UML DataType. See Section 8.3.2.2, “Block” for property classifications that SysML defines for either a Block or ValueType. 

 

ValueTypes can be used to type constraint parameters. Since ValueTypes extend UML DataTypes, and Enumerations are a subtype of  DataType, Enumerations might be used. Since Blocks could be used as types of constraint parameters as well, the implication that any subtype of a UML datatype might lead to the implication that any subtype of UML classifier could be used here as well (e.g. activity or StateMachine), which is of course not meant. 

 

We need to constrain this definition better

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 1, 2011: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 16373: Content of Requirement::/tracedTo (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA (Mr. Yann Tanguy, yann.tanguy(at)cea.fr)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In the specification the content of the derived property “Requirement::tracedTo” is defined as follows:

 

• /tracedTo: NamedElement [*] 

Derived from all elements that are the supplier of a «trace» relationship for which this requirement is a client.

 

As «copy» «deriveReqt» «verify» and «satisfy» inherit from “Trace”, does this means that /tracedTo also list all elements that are the supplier of a «copy» «verify» «satisfy» «deriveReqt» relationship for which this requirement is a client ?


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 18, 2011: received issue

Issue 16636: Problems with property-specific types (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Deere & Company (Mr. Roger Burkhart, burkhartrogerm(at)johndeere.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Definition of a property-specific type cannot be shown on a bdd.  This would require, at least, a defined name for the block or value type that types the property, such as one based on the property name.


No runtime semantics is given.  Presumably all instances of a property-specific type are values of the property it types, but this isn't said anywhere.  It the property it types is an end of an association, this could be expressed by a lower multiplicity greater than zero on opposite end.


No examples of property specific types are given.


The requirements for property-specific types to be anonymous, singly generalized, and owned by the owner of the property they type don't appear to be necessary.  Naming is useful for managing PSTs, multiple generalization is useful for reusing property defaults and other characteristics on multiple PSTs, and package ownership enables the same PST to be used on multiple properties that have the same type.


The description of the property-specific types refers to:


"local specializations of referenced typed" (Section 8.3.1.1 Block Definition Diagram) and


"starting classifier of the property-specific type." (Section 8.3.2.7 PropertySpecificType)


The terms "local", "referenced type", "starting classifier nof the property specific type" are undefined and not deducible from other text.


The following sentence is a tautology (ie, adds nothing to the spec):


"The PropertySpecificType stereotype is automatically applied to the "classifier that types a property with a propertyspecific type. (Section "8.3.2.7 PropertySpecificType)"


because a property with a property specific type is one where the property type has the PropertySpecificType applied.


Section 8.3.1.1 (Block Definition Diagram) at the end says the name of the property specific type can be included in brackets, but constraint [2] of PropertySpecificType says they are anonymous.

The discussion of compartments on internal properties in Section 8.3.1.2 (Internal Block Diagram) can be simplified by removing the discussion of property-specific types.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 27, 2011: received issue

Issue 16652: InstanceSpecifications for exactly one instance (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NASA (Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette, nicolas.f.rouquette(at)jpl.nasa.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
InstanceSpecifications describe sets of instances, including the empty set, but some applications need to describe exactly one instance.  SysML should have InstanceSpecifications that are constrained to describe exactly one instance, like the owlIndividual stereotype in the Ontology Definition Metamodel.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2011: received issue

Issue 16653: InstanceSpecification equality (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NASA (Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette, nicolas.f.rouquette(at)jpl.nasa.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Multiple InstanceSpecifications can describe overlapping sets of instances, and some application need to specify whether the sets overlap.  For InstanceSpecifications that specify exactly one instance, this indicates whether they describe the same instance, like the sameAs stereotype in the Ontology Definition Metamodel.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2011: received issue

Issue 16657: Lightweight representations of faults, failures, hazards and off-nominal conditions and behavior (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Minor
Summary:
There is a critical need to model off nominal conditions and behavior associated with faults, failures, and hazards. However, there currently is no standard way to represent this in the SysML model. This issue is intended to provide some lightweight and standardized and light-weight capability for this type of modeling, such as a trigger on a state machine with the stereotype failure or a fault stereotype to represent a fault condition. There is a separate profile (not standardized) that was developed by Bruce Powell Douglass that provides a broader more comprehensive capability that could be leveraged as source material.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 10, 2011: received issue

Issue 16726: Issue on Block constraint#4 (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Airbus Group (Mr. Yves Bernard, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In SysML v1.3, §8.3.2.2 Blocks, the constraint #4 states:
 
“[4]In the UML metamodel on which SysML is built, a Property that is typed by a block must be defined as an end of an association. (An inverse end of this association, whether owned by another block or the association itself, must always be present so there is always a metamodel element to record the inverse multiplicity of the reference.)”
 
No such constraint exists in the UML specification which conversely says the following (UML v2.4, §7.3.45):
 
“A property related to a classifier by ownedAttribute represents an attribute, and it may also represent an association end. It relates an instance of the class to a value or collection of values of the type of the attribute”
 
The SysML Block constraint #4 has no clear justification and should be removed.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 28, 2011: received issue

Issue 16876: SysML's PrimitiveValueTypes library is missing "value" properties everywhere (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NASA (Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette, nicolas.f.rouquette(at)jpl.nasa.gov)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
For SysML 1.3, has anyone tried to specify the value of a SysML::ValueType ?


If you haven't done so, please try to do this carefully -- i.e., don't just assume that Real x = "42.0" is enough!


You'll realize then that the SysML 1.3 spec doesn't provide the capability to specify the actual value for any of the SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes


SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Boolean
SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Integer
SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Real
SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::String


Since we can't specify the actual real value of a SysML Real, we can't specify the realPart or the imaginaryPart of a SysML Complex number either!


SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Complex::realPart : 
SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Complex::imaginaryPart


What is missing is an actual "value" attribute whose type then must be from the UML PrimitiveTypes library since it's the only capability in UML/SysML we have to specify an actual "value" via the Literal[X] metaclasses in UML.


SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Boolean::value : PrimitiveTypes::Boolean -- an actual value can be specified as a UML::LiteralBoolean
SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Integer::value : PrimitiveTypes::Integer -- an actual value can be specified as a UML::LiteralInteger
SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Real::value : PrimitiveTypes::Real -- an actual value can be specified as a UML::LiteralReal
SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::String::value : PrimitiveTypes::String -- an actual value can be specified as a UML::LiteralString


SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Complex can remain as-is since it inherits the capability 
to specify an actual value for its realPart & imaginaryPart attributes thanks to SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Real::value : PrimitiveTypes::Real


I also realized that the QUDV library inconsistently uses in a few places SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes when in fact it should use UML's PrimitiveTypes.


I believe that this is a new issue for SysML 1.3.


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 5, 2011: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 16891: SysML diagrams show only SysML-stereotyped elements (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NASA (Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette, nicolas.f.rouquette(at)jpl.nasa.gov)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
As discussed in the SysML 1.4 RTF meeting today, it is currently unclear whether all of the elements shown in SysML diagrams have a SysML stereotype applied or not.


In some cases, there is an explicit mention about the meaning of SysML diagrams, e.g., 11.3.1.1 Activity:


Activities in block definition diagrams appear as regular blocks, except the «activity» keyword may be used to indicate the Block stereotype is applied to an activity, as shown in Figure 11.1. 


We need a clarification whether the meaning of SysML diagrams is that they show only SysML-stereotyped elements or not and if not which UML elements can be shown on a SysML diagram without any SysML stereotype applied.


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 12, 2011: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 16945: Question about the Activity decomposition in Bloc Definition Diagrams (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
I like the feature of SysML to decompose activities in a block definition diagram based on the callbehavior semantics (Fig. 11.1. SysML spec.).

For example I use that extensively in the FAS methodology (Functional Architectures for Systems). 

 

I have a question about the composite relationship between activities. The SysML specification seems to be unclear about that.

When modeling an activity with a CallbehaviorAction of another activity, does that automatically creates the association between the

activities in the model? I think it must do that. Unfortunately tools seems to have a different behavior.


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 8, 2012: received issue

Issue 16947: Error in pending 1.3 diagram 15.6 and elsewhere (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In Figure 15.6 in pending SysML 1.3, on the left side of the diagram, the object-flow, labeled objectflow3 is a dashed line. From table 11.2, object flows always use solid lines (though control flow can use either solid or dashed). 

 

This was also wrong in SysML 1.2, though the diagram number was then 15.5.

 

Thanks to Geoffrey Shuebrook who pointed this out to me,.

 


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 9, 2012: received issue

Issue 17016: Property Based Requirements (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Lockheed Martin (Mr. John Watson, jcwatson(at)ieee.org)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
In SysML today requirements can be represented in a model only in a textual form. Being textually based these requirements often introduce ambiguity, are often redundant with other model element properties, and lack a formally making it difficult to leverage directly in parametric and other analysis efforts. 
This issue suggests an alternative means of representing requirement in the model environment without using a pure text string. The alternative means is referred to as Property Based Requirement (PBR). PBR defines a requirement mathematically and defines a set of requirement properties.  The goal is declare other types of model elements as requirements and apply these properties to those model elements. 

A PBR theory is described in a paper called “Toward a Property Based Requirements Theory: System Requirements Structured as a Semilattice” by Patrice Micouin. This technique is further elaborated in a paper called “Requirements Management within a Full Model-Based Engineering Approach” by Yves Bernard

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 19, 2012: received issue

Issue 17210: SysML XMI seems to define its own versions of UML Primitive Types rather than reusing those from UML (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
SysML XMI seems to define its own versions of UML Primitive Types rather  than reusing those from UML. Furthermore they are not even defined as instances of PrimitiveType despite their XMI id.

For example we have:

            <packagedElement xmi:type="uml:DataType"
                             xmi:id="_OMG_SysML_20110919_SysML_Libraries-PrimitiveValueTypes-String"
                             name="String"/>


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 3, 2012: received issue

Issue 17248: Section 9.3.1.7 (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
9.3.1.7.  The keyword “full” before a property name indicates the property is stereotyped by ProxyPort  . Copy/paste bug? <<full>> is for FullPorts.


What is the type of FullPort? Spec says nothing.


What are possible owned properties of the InterfaceBlock? Values, FlowProperties? other?  In 9.1 InterfaceBlock it is not flow nor value.


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2012: received issue

Issue 17251: Port labels inside Port symbol (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Port labels inside Port symbol. Is it new notation, not supported in UML?  One more nightmare for tools?Where it is described? 
What information can be inside port? Name, type? How about stereotype label, tags, etc?  E.g.  <<full>> - should it be inside or not?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2012: received issue

Issue 17255: 9.3.2.9 What is InterfaceBlock? (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
9.3.2.9   What is InterfaceBlock? Where is description? Description is the same as constraint [1] text now.
InterfaceBlock is kind of Block, so, can it be used everywhere Block is used?  e.g.  part of the FullPort. 


Constraint [2].  Does it mean Interface block can't have value properties and e.g. constraint properties?
Constaint [3] - does it mean "proxy ports" ? if so, it could be more clear text to say "InterfaceBlock can own proxy ports only"
constraint [4] - it must be constraint[4] for FullPort??? 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2012: received issue

Issue 17307: clarification, what "part property" is (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The NEW issue - clarification, what "part property" is, as new port types typed by Blocks changed everything, they fit into "part properties" definition. 
SysML 1.3, Page 43 : "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.  "



Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 13, 2012: received issue

Issue 17373: Is <<equal>> keyword (or stereotype) on binding connectors is part of SysML notation? (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Is <<equal>> keyword (or stereotype) on binding connectors is part of SysML notation?   Figure 9.7 Usage example of proxy and full ports  

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 17, 2012: received issue

Issue 17406: Callout notation for port-specific types and initial values (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Mr. Axel Scheithauer, axel.scheithauer(at)oose.de)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The specification allows property-specific types and property-specific initial values. Ports are just a special kind of property. Thus it would be possible to model port-specific types and values. The only problem is, that it is not possible to show the specifics of these types or the initial values within an internal block diagram, as would be the case for a property. 


Suggested addition to the spec
- property-specific types and initial values also apply to ports [would not be forbidden now, but just to clarify this point]
- A callout notation can be used in an ibd for ports with a port-specific type or initial value. It shows the same information as the compartments for properties.
- Table 8.3: Example for call-out notation

Maybe this notation could also be used on block definition diagrams, and in this case for properties as well. Then there should be a sentence in chapter 8.1.1.1 and an example in Table 8.2.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 5, 2012: received issue

Issue 17423: remove figure numbers from diagram frames (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Deere & Company (Mr. Roger Burkhart, burkhartrogerm(at)johndeere.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Remove figure numbers where they still exist within the SysML diagram frame tab. As content is reshuffled in the document, figure numbers inside the diagrams can become out-of-sync with the figure numbers in the document, as is currently the case for figures C.35 and C.37. Maintain the figure number only in the figure caption, not redundantly within the diagram itself.

Diagrams that include figure numbers in the diagram frame tab include 4.2, 4.3, 17.5, C.35, C.36, and C.37.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 12, 2012: received issue

Issue 17467: SysML: References to CreateEvent incorrect (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In UML 2.4.1, the equivalent to createEvent and desturctionEvent are now called messages. This should be followed in SysML. This  changes the text in the 1st row of Table 12.1 on page 116, but it may impact other places also.


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 7, 2012: received issue

Issue 17501: Problems with 1.3 Enumeration Literals (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In section 6.3 ,the convention is given that indicates that enumeration literals within SysML are named with the suffix of Kind. 

Enumeration types: always end with “Kind” (e.g., “DependencyKind”).

 

Several of the SysML enumeration literals are correctly named, but the following do not follow the convention:

 

Section 9.3.2      Figure 9.1            FlowDirection      àFlowDirectionKind

Section 9.3.2      Figure 9.4            FeatureDirection àFeatureDirectionKind

Section 11.3.3    Figure 11.9          ControlValue      àControlValueKind

 


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 12, 2012: received issue

Issue 17546: Contradiction regarding allowed use of the derived indicator for constraint parameters (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Delligatti Associates, LLC (Mr. Lenny Delligatti, ldelligatti(at)delligattiassociates.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
There is a contradiction in the SysML spec. regarding whether constraint parameters--as properties of constraint blocks--may use the derived indicator, "/".


Pg. 84 of the spec. clearly states the original intent of the SysML Development Team with respect to constraint blocks:  "The block constraints are non-causal and do not specify the dependent or independent variables. The specific dependent and independent variables are often defined by the initial conditions, and left to the computational engine."


On pg. 86, however, the spec. states textually that constraint parameters are properties of constraint blocks:  "All properties of a constraint block are constraint parameters, with the exception of constraint properties that hold internally nested usages of other constraint blocks."


There is no metamodel fragment in the spec. that shows that the stereotype SysML::ConstraintParameter extends the metaclass UML4SysML::Property.  The text on pg. 86 (quoted above) conveys this.


As a result of this (implied) extension relationship, we would have to conclude that a constraint parameter could use the derived indicator, "/", to convey that it is a dependent variable in the constraint expression.


This stands in contradiction, however, to the intended non-causal, non-directional nature of constraint blocks as expressed on pg. 84.


Proposed Resolutions:
  
1)  Add a metamodel fragment to the spec. that clearly shows the extension relationship from SysML::ConstraintParameter to UML4SysML::Property.
2)  Add a constraint to the SysML::ConstraintParameter stereotype disallowing the use of the derived indicator, "/", on constraint parameters.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 8, 2012: received issue

Issue 18168: How to refer to properties of an extension? (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Airbus Group (Mr. Yves Bernard, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
For a practical usage it is required to be able to refer to a property of a stereotype application, for instance as target or source of an allocation relationship. This need is somewhat similar to that of referencing a nested property but we shall make sure the solution selected for the Common Reference Path will be able to address this case too.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 2, 2012: received issue

Issue 18169: Interface blocks and protocols (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Airbus Group (Mr. Yves Bernard, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The practical usage of port implies the ability to specify a protocol, especially when operations or receptions are provided but not only (this can be true with flow properties too).
 
The UML::Interface metaclass (at L3) has a specific property to define a protocol. Note that this protocol is not an owned behavior but only a specification of conformance characteristics.
 
I believe we should add something similar to our InterfaceBlock stereotype, even if we do not include UML protocol state machines.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 24, 2012: received issue

Issue 18181: Missing ownership constraints (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: PTC (Mr. Phillip Astle, phil.astle(at)atego.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Critical
Summary:
The FlowProperty stereotype can current be applied to any Property in SysML.  However, this leaves it open to applying the stereotype to Ports (inc. extensions of Ports) and Properties owned by non-Blocks.  This doesn't seem to match the intent of the specification so constraints need to be added

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 19, 2012: received issue

Issue 18182: Missing type constraints for FullPort (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: PTC (Mr. Phillip Astle, phil.astle(at)atego.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Critical
Summary:
Ports stereotyped as FullPort can currently be typed by anything a normal Port can be typed by.  This isn't the intent of the specification, so constraints should be added.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 19, 2012: received issue

Issue 18183: Incorrect constraint [2] on InterfaceBlock (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: PTC (Mr. Phillip Astle, phil.astle(at)atego.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Critical
Summary:
Constraint [2] specifies that "Interface blocks cannot have composite properties that are not ports".  However, in order to show FlowProperties, typed by ValueTypes and owned by InterfaceBlocks, you need to be able to have composite properties.  

The constraint at the moment is too strict and needs to be changed to allow certain composite properties.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 19, 2012: received issue

Issue 18193: Fix the notation (hopefully in the same way as UML) to allow allocation of a decision to a swimlane (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Fix the notation (hopefully in the same way as UML) to allow allocation of a decision to a swimlane

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 22, 2012: received issue

Issue 18268: SysML stereotype notation creates ambiguity about to which element is the stereotype applied (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NASA (Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette, nicolas.f.rouquette(at)jpl.nasa.gov)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The SysML notation allows a stereotype <<S>> applied to an element E1 to be shown as the notation for a different element E2 related to E1 in some way.


Example: 11.3.1.2 CallBehaviorAction and Figure 11.2:





Stereotypes applied to behaviors may appear on the notation for CallBehaviorAction when invoking those behaviors, as

shown in Figure 11.2.




What this means is that if a CallBehaviorAction shows a stereotype <<S>>, then it is unclear whether <<S>> is applied to the CallBehaviorAction itself or to the behavior that the CallBehaviorAction calls.

This ambiguity is problematic for users reading SysML diagrams as indicated by SysML issue 17549:





Table 11.1 on pg. 93 shows that the «controlOperator» stereotype can be applied

to a call behavior action (when that call behavior action calls an activity that also

has the «controlOperator» stereotype applied).



More generally,  the SysML spec needs to be reviewed where this stereotype notation can result in this kind of ambiguity.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 20, 2012: received issue

Issue 18312: VerdictKind (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
I just realized that Requirements::VerdictKind enumeration in SysML profile is NOT a ValueType, so I can't use it in SysML model to type my values.


Does everyone agree that it shall have ValueType stereotype applied?


We should make sure all datatypes we provide are ValueTypes.


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 12, 2012: received issue

Issue 18391: View and Viewpoint Limitations in support of auto-view generation (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
An important capability of a model based approach is the ability to automatically generate Views of the information from the model to support specific stakeholder Viewpoints. These Views may include the presentation of the modeling information in multiple forms such as diagrams, tables, or entire documents captured in different formats (e.g., MS Word, html, ppt, video). The View and Viewpoint constructs in SysML were included to aid in the automatic generation of Views, by enabling the specification of the View information and its presentation to address the stakeholder concerns. The View generation is generally implemented by other rendering applications.  


At the SE DSIG meeting on June 18, 2012 in Cambridge, several individuals presented and demonstrated common practices for View generation from a model that are providing value to end users. The presentations are available from the Cambridge SE DSIG meeting page. The  practices required the users and vendors to further extend View and Viewpoint in different ways to overcome inherent limitations in order to leverage their respective View generation capabilities. The lack of a standard approach limits interchange and requires that each user and vendor include their unique extensions.
The specific limitations of View and Viewpoint are described below. For background, the Viewpoint and View descriptions in the SysML specification v1.3 currently read as follows:
Viewpoint: A Viewpoint is a specification of the conventions and rules for constructing and using a view for the purpose of addressing a set of stakeholder concerns. The languages and methods for specifying a view may reference languages and methods in another viewpoint. They specify the elements expected to be represented in the view, and may be formally or informally defined. For example, the security viewpoint may require the security requirements, security functional and physical architecture, and security test cases.
View: A View is a representation of a whole system or subsystem from the perspective of a single viewpoint. Views are allowed to import other elements including other packages and other views that conform to the viewpoint.
Based on the above descriptions, the Viewpoint specifies how to construct a View, and the View is a representation that conforms to this specification.  
Some of the limitations that have been identified include the following:
a)      Viewpoint method limitations. The current Viewpoint contains a property called method that is typed by a text string (methods:String[*]). In order to auto-generate Views, the Viewpoint should include provisions to more formally specify ‘the conventions and rules for constructing and using a view’. This may include specifying executable methods to query the model that extract the desired information from the model, and present the information to the stakeholders. Viewpoint methods must be capable of specifying the scope of the information to be rendered, how the information should be rendered, as well as other methods related to checking, validating, or otherwise analyzing the information. The scope of the information may include information from other data sources not contained directly in the model. (Note: Standard methods may be captured in a method library that specify how to query, transform, analyze, present, and render data.)
The viewpoint method does not include provisions for specifying the language for the methods. Adding the ability to designate the language would clarify viewpoint.
b)      Viewpoint description limitations. The current viewpoint description should be clarified to note that it should specify the presentation of the information as well as the information itself. This may require additional viewpoint properties to enable the specification of the form and format of the information.  The form of the data in this context refers to how the information is presented such as data values that are in tabular form or a plot. The format of the data in this context refers to the file format that is used for the rendering application.
c)      View import limitations. The current View description says “Views are allowed to import other elements including other packages and other Views that conform to the Viewpoint”.  View also includes a constraint that ‘A view can only own element import, package import, comment and constraint elements’. This concept of importing model elements into a package is not a sufficient means for constructing  Views. The relationship between the view and the model elements should reflect the concept that the View can be constructed by defining operations to query models and other sources of data, and perform other operations on the information to present it in a form that is useful to the stakeholders. 
d)      Other view construction limitations. A View conforming to a Viewpoint may be constructed from different sets of information that may be rendered as an entire document, a part of a document, a set of powerpoint slides or an individual slide, a video or series of videos, or other form.  A typical example may be a security View that represents security requirements, design, and verification information.  This requires the View to be constructed from sub-views, and that these sub-views must be ordered in a particular way to present to the user. An example would be the ordering of sections in a document, where each section represents a subview which in-turn represents selected information.  
A current limitation is the inability to express the ordering and general organization of the View and corresponding subviews that comprise the View (Note: this is a structural ordering and not a temporal ordering). Some of the current approaches have addressed this limitation by including a dependency relationship between the subviews. The relationships can express a precedence relationship (i.e.., next) and a decomposition relationship (i.e., first). A simple example of how these relationships are used to construct a View that is presented to the stakeholder as a document is described below.
In a simple example, different subviews may correspond to different sections of a document that comprise the View. For example, some text with a table of information from one part of the model may appear in Section 1, and some other text with a diagram that represents other model information may appear in Section 2. Each section of the document may require different viewpoints to specify the query and presentation.  There is currently no way to describe that a View that conforms to a Viewpoint contains multiple subviews with the relationships as indicated in the figure. There is a need to create a View that contains subviews that are related to one another with the types of relationships indicated (e.g., first, next).  (Note: It is anticipated that the View and subviews should be reusable, and may require additional metadata ).
In this example, each section of the document corresponds to a particular subview. However, we do not want to restrict a subview so that the information cannot be distributed across multiple sections of a document, or across multiple documents.
e)      Reuse of view and viewpoint. There needs to be sufficient expression to construct reusable definitions of view and viewpoint. These mechanisms may include composition, specialization, model libraries, and others. 
f)      Viewpoint property limitations. Some of the Viewpoint properties, such as stakeholder, concern, and modeling language are currently typed as text strings, and may be better represented by other types. For cases where these elements are common among different viewpoints, there is no way to model these elements or the relationships between them. In a large-scale model, this becomes very difficult to scale. In particular, it is difficult to reuse the model elements such as stakeholder across different viewpoints, and it is difficult to perform automated checking of the viewpoints based on these viewpoint properties. The viewpoint properties should be typed by model elements that enable this reuse and checking.
g)      Other View and Viewpoint Mechanisms. There may be additional ways to create views more directly in the model. For example, a view may correspond to a filtered subset of a set of parts on an ibd corresponding that are based on some criteria (e.g., all electrical parts). This is similar to issue 13928 called the partition construct (later referred to as element group).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 28, 2013: received issue

Issue 18409: Figure 15.8 diagram type (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Figure 15.8 (Example of Structural Allocation) is an ibd, but has blocks instead of parts in it.  Is it supposed to be a bdd?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 4, 2013: received issue

Issue 18410: Constraint [5] should include specializations of Requirement (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: PTC (Mr. Phillip Astle, phil.astle(at)atego.com)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Constraint [5] states:


"A nested classifier of a class stereotyped by «requirement» must also be stereotyped by «requirement»."


This would seem to stop Requirements from owning Classes stereotyped by specializations of Requirements (for example, ExtendedRequirement from D.2.2 Stereotypes), which seems too limiting.  I'd suggest this is reworded to:

"A nested classifier of a class stereotyped by «requirement» must also be stereotyped by «requirement» or one of its specializations"

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 5, 2013: received issue

Issue 18434: Inability to specify partial allocation and requriements satisfaction (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The allocate and requirements relationships (e.g., satisfy, verify, derive) do not explicitly state the degree to which these relationships apply. For example, a satisfy relationship may imply a model element may fully satisfy, partially satisfy, or not satisfy at all a particular requirement at a point in the design process. However, there is no standard way to refer to this partial vs complete satisfaction. A similar issue applies to the verify and derive relationships. 


Note: Similar issues apply to allocate relationships where the allocate may indicate that the element is fully or partially allocated to another element.

The SysML spec should consider incorporating a tagged value to indicate 0, partial or complete on these relationships.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 8, 2013: received issue

Issue 18439: 9.3.2.4 direction of ports (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
9.3.2.4 What does it mean "the meaning of direction"?? how direction is visible on port?
This issue is a portion of issue 17253 (9.3.2.4 DirectedFeature , constraint 4 - what is inherited method???) and is filed to allow it to be addressed separately from the rest of 17253.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 11, 2013: received issue

Issue 18441: 9.3.2.4 direction of ports and their notation (second issue) (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Constraint [1] - properties that have no FlowProperty applied. does it include ports, association ends, value properties???

More specifically – can port be stereotyped as directed feature/flow property, what types of properties can be stereotypes with these stereotypes?

This issue is a portion of issue 17253 (9.3.2.4 DirectedFeature , constraint 4 - what is inherited method???) and is filed to allow it to be addressed separately from the rest of 17253.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 11, 2013: received issue

Issue 18458: Ports and Flows (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The title of section 9.4.2 includes the term "Flow Ports", which is deprecated.  I think it should be "Flow properties".  Maybe an editing instruction for a 1.3 issue exists for this, not sure.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 15, 2013: received issue

Issue 18459: Figures 15.5 and 15.6 diagram types (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Figures 15.5 (Example of flow allocation from ObjectFlow to Connector) and 15.6 (Example of flow allocation from ObjectFlow to ItemFlow) have ibds on the right, but those ibds have blocks instead of parts in them.  Are they supposed to be a bdds?  The blocks show parts, but the compartment doesn't say "structured" (same for Figure 15.8).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 15, 2013: received issue

Issue 18460: Allocation tabular notation normative? (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The clause Allocations, Usage Example, Tabular Representation is in the normative part of the spec, but refers to a tabular notation in Annex C, which isn't normative.  Is the tabular notation normative?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 15, 2013: received issue

Issue 18461: Allocated notation on object nodes missing from diagram elements table (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
In Allocations, the Diagram Element table is missing the notation for allocated object nodes shown in Figure 15.7 (Example of flow allocation from ObjectNode to FlowProperty).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 15, 2013: received issue

Issue 18462: Libraries package should be named "SysML Model Libraries" (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The spec headings refer to model libraries using the adjective "model", so the package name should include it also.  The name should start with "SysML" since it is separate from the SysML package.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 17, 2013: received issue

Issue 18502: Don't use the optional notation for Pins with Allocation (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: PTC (Mr. Phillip Astle, phil.astle(at)atego.com)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Figure C.35 uses the optional notation for Pins (i.e. ->[]-> instead of []->[]).  The allocation callout note is anchored to the object node symbol which makes it ambiguous as to which dictionary item(s) are being allocated.  It could be one of the following:


+ the origin and destination pins
+ the object flow
+ the common type of the pins

Since it's unclear what is being allocated, it would make more sense to show the Pins on the diagram and link the callout note to the relevant item(s) (I believe it's supposed to go to the ObjectFlow).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 26, 2013: received issue

Issue 18503: Diagram show inconsistent data (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: PTC (Mr. Phillip Astle, phil.astle(at)atego.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Diagrams C.35, C.36 and C.37 show inconsistent allocation between the displayed items, yet the text would seem to imply that they're supposed to show the same relationships.


In C.35, the allocation is from an ObjectNode symbol called "DriveCurrent" (which I believe equates to an ObjectFlow - name unknown) to an ItemFlow called "i1".


In C.36, the allocation is from an ObjectNode called "DriveCurrent" to a Connector (name unknown).


In C.37, the allocation is from an ObjectFlow called "o6" to a Connector called "epc-emg.1".


There are a number of issues:


1. ObjectNode is an abstract specialization of ActivityNode and as such you can't have any instances of them in a model.  Any reference to an ObjectNode should be removed.


2. The allocation should consistently be from  ObjectFlow "o6" to either ItemFlow "i1" or Connector "epc-emg.1".

3. In order to make it clear that the same items are being related, the names of the ObjectFlow and the Connector/ItemFlow should be shown on all diagrams.  Currently the ObjectFlow and the Connector names are not shown.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 26, 2013: received issue

Issue 18525: Clarification required for Copy relationship (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: PTC (Mr. Phillip Astle, phil.astle(at)atego.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
There's a few issues with the Copy relationship as described in the specification.


1. It's unclear what constraint 3 means.  What are subrequirements (nested or derived)?  


2. How do you match subrequirements in the slave to subrequirements in the master?


3. There's no constraint on the number of Copy relationships that a slave Requirement can be involved in (e.g. one Requirement could be the slave of two different master Requirements).  What happens to the "text" tag if there are multiple masters?


4. There's no constraint stopping a Requirement from being directly or indirectly a master of itself.  Shouldn't there be?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 4, 2013: received issue

Issue 18623: Semantics of multiple Dependencies (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Airbus Group (Mr. Yves Bernard, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
SysML defines or uses some relationship based on the UML Dependency metaclass. It is possible to specify multiple dependencies having with the same client or supplier. The user can rely on this capability for various purposes. The point is that there is no standard semantics for such constructs. This must be clarified.
 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 8, 2013: received issue

Issue 18659: primitive types in SysML Activities (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In SysML, value property types are restricted to be a ValueType.  
I see the problem with incompatible and inconsistent types in customer models, as Activities have no restrictions and still use UML primitive types as pin and parameter types.


Did I miss something in the spec, or types used in Activity are not restricted to be ValueTypes?  


Also, did we fix VerdictKind to be a ValueType?  I don't remember.


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 12, 2013: received issue

Issue 18676: ProxyPort with FlowProperties (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
I struggle to use  proxy port with flow properties. One idea is to use a behavioral port and to bind the flow properties with the behavior parameters. In chapter 9.3.2.7 about FlowProperties the spec states:

 

The binding of flow properties on ports to behavior parameters can be achieved in ways not dictated by SysML. One approach is to perform name and type matching. Another approach is to explicitly use binding relationships between the ports properties and behavior parameters or block properties.

 

 

What are port properties? A port has no properties, but the type of the port, e.g. a InterfaceBlock. And these properties are the same for any usage  of the InterfaceBlock and I can’t use  context-specific binding relationships.


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 18, 2013: received issue

Issue 18678: Unclear is StructuredActivityNode owned Actions should be Allocated (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: PTC (Mr. Phillip Astle, phil.astle(at)atego.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
In the Constraints section the specification states the following:


'An Action appearing in an “AllocateActivityPartition” will be the /client (from) end of an “allocate” dependency. The element that represents the “AllocateActivityPartition” will be the /supplier (to) end of the same “allocate” dependency.'


For Actions owned by an Activity and shown inside the partition, this constraint is clear.  However, if you have a StructuredActivityNode inside a partition and that StructuredActivityNode owns an Action, how many Allocate dependencies should there be?  Should there be:


a) One allocate from the StructuredActivityNode only?
b) One allocate dependency from the StructuredActivityNode and one from the Action inside the StructuredActivityNode?


To make things clearer, instead of the constraints section saying:


'An Action appearing IN an "An Action appearing in an “AllocateActivityPartition”'


It should say something along the lines of:


'An Action referenced in the "node" role of an “AllocateActivityPartition”'


This would remove the ambiguity of what "in" means and allow users to decide when Allocate dependencies are created.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 19, 2013: received issue

Issue 18685: Forked association notation ill-formed (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
In Table 8.2 (Graphical paths defined by in Block Definition diagrams), rows MultibranchPart Association and MultibranchShared Association shows two association lines sharing one end (property3), implying the end is owned by two blocks (assuming the other ends are different), which isn't possible. Even if the two blocks on the opposite ends redefine property3 using the same name, the "shared" end would actually be separate elements in the model, though they would appear notationally the same.  If this is the intention, redefinition of property3 should be added to the figure, and some diagram extension text should explain that the "shared" graphical elements refer to three underlying model elements.  The notation isn't in 2.4.1 that I can find.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 24, 2013: received issue

Issue 18705: SysML 1.3 is incorrect that full ports cannot be behavioral and is inconsistent about what behavioral ports are (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NASA (Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette, nicolas.f.rouquette(at)jpl.nasa.gov)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
SysML 1.3 section 9.1.3 Proxy Ports and Full Ports states:

 

Full ports cannot be behavioral in the UML sense of standing in for the owning object, because they handle features themselves, rather than exposing features of their owners, or internal parts of their owners.

 

This is incorrect; see UML 2.5, section 11.3.3 Structured Classifier Semantics:

 

A Port has the ability, by setting the property isBehavior to true, to specify that any requests arriving at this Port are handled by the Behavior of the instance of the owning EncapsulatedClassifier, rather than being forwarded to any contained instances, if any. Such a Port is called a behavior Port. If there is no Behavior defined for this EncapsulatedClassifier, any communication arriving at a behavior Port is lost.

 

Based on the UML 2.5 semantics of behavioral ports, there is no legitimate reason to exclude a SysML 1.3 FullPort to be behavioral in the UML sense.

 

This is inconsistent with SysML 1.3, section 9.3.2.7 FlowProperty:

 

Items going to or from behavioral ports (UML isBehavior = true) are actually going to or from the owning block. (See “Block” on page 66 for definition of owning block of proxy ports in this case.)

 

The above is consistent with the UML 2.5 semantics but it is inconsistent with the SysML 1.3 semantics of FullPort above.

 

Finally, SysML 1.3 section 9.3.2.8 FullPort states:

 

They cannot be behavioral ports, or linked to internal parts by binding connectors, because these constructs imply identity with the owning block or internal parts.

 

The notion that a behavioral port implies identity with the owning block or internal parts is incorrect and does not make sense.

 

It would require that a behavioral port to be typed by its owning block or internal part.

It would be impossible for a block A to have a behavioral port typed by B for example.



Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 9, 2013: received issue

Issue 18709: The SysML classification of properties is incomplete (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NASA (Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette, nicolas.f.rouquette(at)jpl.nasa.gov)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
SysML 1.3 section 8.3.2.2 Block says:


SysML establishes four basic classifications of properties belonging to a SysML Block or ValueType.
…
A property typed by a SysML ValueType is classified as a value property, and always has composite aggregation. 


In SysML, we also have Signals.
In UML, Signals can have properties.


How does SysML then classify properties defined in a Signal?


A very strict reading of the SysML spec would suggest that a Signal cannot have any kind of SysML property because a Signal is neither a SysML Block nor a SysML ValueType.
However, this is clearly too restrictive in practice.


I propose expanding SysML's classification of properties to include SysML Blocks, ValueTypes and Signals.
This leads to another question:


What are the legal types of a property belonging to a Signal?


I propose restricting such properties to be typed by SysML ValueTypes only. This corresponds to the practical situation where a Signal carries a data payload – I.e., it is a message with some data content.
Allowing a property belonging to a Signal to be typed by a SysML Block or Signal leads to semantic problems — what would it mean to send / receive such signals?



Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 13, 2013: received issue

Issue 18735: About Rate, Continuous and Discrete (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA (Dr. Sebastien Gerard, sebastien.gerard(at)cea.fr)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In the figure shown below, Continous and Discrete stereotypes seems to be applied an ActivityParameterNode of an Activity. However, those aforementioned stereotype do not extend ActivityParameterNode but only Parameter and ActivityEdge. Is it an error?

In the same order, <<continuous>>, <<discrete>> and <<rate>> are also applied on something called “Object Node”? However, <<Rate>> seems not to extend any node.

 



 


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 23, 2013: received issue

Issue 18737: What kind of elements can diagrams be for?. (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In Appendix A there is a list that says:
The following are some of the designated model elements associated with the different diagram kinds.
? activity diagram - activity
? block definition diagram - block, package, or constraint block
? internal block diagram - block or constraint block
? package diagram - package or model
? parametric diagram - block or constraint block
? requirement diagram - package or requirement
? sequence diagram - interaction
? state machine diagram - state machine
? use case diagram - package
 
Based on my readings, which seems to indicate that the type of element whose namespace contains the elements in the diagram, I would say it should be 
? activity diagram - activity
? block definition diagram - block, package, or constraint block, activity, profile
? internal block diagram - block or constraint block
? package diagram - package or model, view, modelLibrary, profile
? parametric diagram - block or constraint block
? requirement diagram - package or requirement, model, view, modelLibrary, 
? sequence diagram - interaction
? state machine diagram - state machine, block, operation, use case
? use case diagram ? package, block, view, model, modelLibrary
 
( I left out some  cases of profile, when I couldn?t think of what it would show, but profile could be added to any list that covers package)

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 29, 2013: received issue

Issue 18758: Allow the equal symbol, =, without guillemets as an alternative diagram notation for SysML binding connectors (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NASA (Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette, nicolas.f.rouquette(at)jpl.nasa.gov)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Table 8.4 in SysML 1.3 defines the notation for a SysML BindingConnector in terms of an "<<equal>>" keyword. This notation is very expensive in terms of diagram footprint.
Without displaying the "<<equal>>" keyword, SysML BindingConnectors become visually indistinguishable from bidirectional SysML assembly connectors.


Suggest providing an alternate notation for SysML BindingConnectors in Table 8.4 based on an elegant solution that some SysML tools and SysML RTF members already use, that is, a single "=" symbol without the keyword guillemets, that is, "=", not "<<=>>".



Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 5, 2013: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 18783: SysML says nothing about how to deal with multiplicity for flow properties matching (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Airbus Group (Mr. Yves Bernard, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
SysML says nothing about how to deal with multiplicity for flow properties matching

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 20, 2013: received issue

Issue 18805: SysML Issues on Itemp Property values in an IBD (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The SysML spec does not give any notation for (or example of) specifying the values of an item property participating in an item flow. For example, if water flows in multiple places in the distiller, each should be able to have a specified temperature and dissolved matter % (perhaps as distributions).
 
Perhaps a variant of a property specific type would work, perhaps a callout approach would work. 
 
It possible, it would be desirable to allow for multiple item properties:item flows to have the same name within an ibd, as this would be a natural modeling approach (e.g., all the pipes covey the same thing, but with different values). 
 
 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 9, 2013: received issue

Issue 18876: Pull semantics for flow properties (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Airbus Group (Mr. Yves Bernard, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Currently in SysML, flow properties have “Push” semantics (cf. sub-clause 9.3.2.7): writing to a flow property with direction out, propagates value to matching flow property at opposite end of the connector. This implies that there is a behavior running on the part from the “out” side.
 
“Pull” semantics could be useful as well: the value propagation is the result of a read made on the flow property with direction in to the matching property at the opposite end of the connector. 
This implies that there is a behavior running on the part from the “in” side.
 
SysML should introduce a semantic variation point on this topic, and/or some specific notations/abstract syntax

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 19, 2013: received issue

Issue 18877: Depletive/non-depletive semantics of ReadStructuralFeatureActions on FlowProperties (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Airbus Group (Mr. Yves Bernard, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
For “regular” properties, UML semantics in UML is “non-depletive”: the ability to read their value does not depend on the number of time they have been read previously. A “depletive” semantics would implies that a value is no more available once it has been read
 
SysML does not say anything about this for flow properties.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 19, 2013: received issue

Issue 18907: Flow property description: incorrect wording (§9.3.2.7) (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Airbus Group (Mr. Yves Bernard, )
Nature: Clarification
Severity:
Summary:
The description of the semantics related to the direction (in, ou, inout) incorrectly refers to contained “blocks” instead of properties and the description for “inout” is inconsistent (cannot be instantiated )

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 12, 2013: received issue

Issue 18909: Proxy port “complete” specification (§ 9.3.2.12): (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Airbus Group (Mr. Yves Bernard, )
Nature: Clarification
Severity:
Summary:
 if a proxy port P1 has a nested proxy port P1::P2 and both are non-behavioral, does it mean that both P1 and P1::P2 must be explicitly connected to internal parts? If P1 is just a logical group of nested proxy ports, there may be no sense to connect P1 per se internally (but it makes sense to connect P1 externally).

 


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 12, 2013: received issue

Issue 18952: Semantics consistency of conjugated behavior ports (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Airbus Group (Mr. Yves Bernard, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Per the definition of behavior proxy ports, they have their owner for value. This implies that a classifier typing a port is a classifier for the owner of the port as well. However, when that classifier specifies directed features or flow properties, these feature specifications shall be interpreted so that their directions are reverted if the port is conjugated (isConjugated=true). The point is that, if the owner is not itself a port, there is no means to specify that such an interpretation applies. Thus, assuming one needs to refer to the owner as the instance realizing the port, it will be required to explicitly use (and then model) a classifier specifying the corresponding feature in the opposite direction. This makes the useful conjugation concept unusable in practice.

The implementation of the conjugation concept should be modified so that it is not limited to port and applicable to block definitions as well.

 


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 25, 2013: received issue

Issue 18953: Semantics clarification for removing a value from an out Flow Property (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Airbus Group (Mr. Yves Bernard, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The specification should clarify the semantics from removing a value from an “out” Flow Property. Since “removing” something is considered to be a “write”, can we assume that it is propagated to a connected and matching “in” Flow Property, if any?


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 30, 2013: received issue

Issue 18993: proxy and full port notation change request (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
After ˜1 year of using new proxy and full ports, our customers are not happy with using <<proxy>> and <<full>> keywords/labels for port kind identification.


In real life, multiple labels on ports makes modeling a nightmare  (see image below).


In MagicDraw, we use different colors - full port has the same color as part, when proxy port is different, but it is not enough.  Diagram may be printed in B&W too.
What do you think about the idea to change proxy port graphical notation, by adding some special icons or using a dashed line for example?


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 9, 2013: received issue

Issue 19062: Deprecate Unit and QuantityKind stereotypes in 1.4 (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NASA (Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette, nicolas.f.rouquette(at)jpl.nasa.gov)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Instead of deleting the Unit and QuantityKind stereotypes according to the 18269 resolution in SysML 1.4 ballot 4, I suggest moving these stereotypes to the SysML::DeprecatedElements package.


Without doing this, a SysML 1.4 tool that opens a SysML 1.3 model will have to convert InstanceSpecifications stereotyped by SysML 1.3 Unit or QuantityKind into InstanceSpecifications classified by SysML::Libraries::UnitAndQuantityKind::Unit or QuantityKind respectively.


Even if a SysML 1.4 tool alerts the user that this migration has happened, it will not be possible to discern InstanceSpecifications classified by SysML::Libraries::UnitAndQuantityKind::Unit or QuantityKind due migration from SysML 1.3 vs. deliberate choice.


A better migration strategy would be to convert SysML 1.3 Unit/QuantityKind-stereotyped InstanceSpecifications into SysML 1.4 InstanceSpecifications that are both:
stereotyped by SysML::DeprecatedElements::Unit/QuantityKind
Classified by SysML::Libraries::UnitAndQuantityKind::Unit or QuantityKind 
The former leaves a persistent indication that the InstanceSpecifications have been partially migrated.
The latter represents a partial migration to SysML 1.4 Units/QuantityKinds; that is, the user can complete the migration by classifying these InstanceSpecifications with concrete SysML Blocks that specialize SysML::Libraries::UnitAndQuantityKind::Unit or QuantityKind respectively.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 1, 2013: received issue

Issue 19123: Update SysML references to UML model library StandardProfileL2 (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The UML model library "StandardProfileL2" is called "StandardProfile" since UML 2.5. The new library also include the StandardProfileL3 library.

Update the references in the SysML specification (chapter 4.2, 5.1.1, 17) and check whether SysML should also include the StandardProfileL3 stereotypes that are now part of the StandardProfile library.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 25, 2013: received issue

Issue 19134: Convention for enumeration not used for ControlValue (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The convention


Enumeration types: always end with “Kind” (e.g., “DependencyKind”)

is not used for the ControlValue enumeration. It should be named ControlValueKind.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 5, 2013: received issue

Issue 19284: Update to Trace Relationship’ (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
I potentially found a mistake in the latest SysML specification. It can be found on page 144. The “Trace Dependency” and the “TraceCallout” are introduced on this page. Usually these two visualizations should show the same aspect of a SysML model. Unfortunately the “Trace Dependency” is only introduced between two requirements whilst the “TraceCallout” is shown between a requirement and a more general NamedElement. I think the named element should be allowed in both cases in the client role of the trace dependency.                                                                                                                                              ADDITIONAL TEXT
 
The trace stereotype as defined in 16.3.2.7 does not constrain either end of the trace relationship than the having one client and one supplier. 
 
16.3.2.7 Trace
Description
The Trace stereotype specializes UML4SysML Trace and DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath to enable traces to identify their sources and targets by a multi-level path of accessible properties from context blocks for the sources and targets.
Constraints
[1] The Trace stereotype may only be applied to dependencies.
[2] Dependencies with a Trace stereotype or one of its specializations applied must have exactly one client and one supplier.
 
From the UML 2.5 Standard Profile, the UML4SysML::Trace extends Abstraction, which subclasses Dependency. Dependencys are directed relationships between Named Elements. Therefore, the SysML::Trace can have any Named Element as its ends.
 
The diagram elements Table 16.2 on pg 144 should be clarified.

 

Also, in section 16.3.2.7, the trace relationship has specific definitions for Requirements:
 
Operations
[1] The query getTracedFrom() gives all the requirements that are clients (from end of the concrete syntax) of a Trace
relationship whose supplier is the element in parameter. This is a static query.
Trace::getTracedFrom(ref : NamedElement) : Set(Requirement ) {query, static}
getTracedFrom=Requirement.AllInstances()->select(traceTo->includes(ref))
 
The query getTracedFrom() could be more general and query all NamedElements and not only Requirements. 

 


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 14, 2014: received issue

Issue 19286: Abstract syntax for the initial values (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Airbus Group (Mr. Yves Bernard, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The abstract syntax supporting the specification of initial values for properties of SysML block has to be clarified and aligned with the intended semantics.

 

In SysML 1.4, §8.3.1.2.8 says: “A compartment with a label of “initialValues” may be used to show values of properties belonging to a containing block.

These values override any default values that may have been previously specified on these properties on their originally

defining block”

 

While §8.3.2.3 says: “An entire tree of context-specific values can be specified on a containing block to carry values of nested

properties as shown on an internal block diagram”, then: “If a property belonging to a block has a specification of initial values for any of the properties belonging to its type, then

the default value of that property must be a UML InstanceValue element. This element must reference a UML

InstanceSpecification element created to hold the initial values of the individual properties within its usage context. The

instance specification must be unnamed and owned by the same package that owns the outermost containing block for

which the initial values are being specified”

 

If the specification of an initial value is “context specific”:

·         It cannot be specified using the default value of a property

·         It should be possible to distinct initial value depending on the context, i.e. we need a resolution mechanism to know which initial value has to be used


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 21, 2014: received issue

Issue 19321: URI for the SysML Profile given in section E.3 is wrong (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: PTC (Mr. Simon Moore, simon.moore(at)atego.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
At the end of section E.4 on page 245:
"The namespace for the standard profile is: http://schema.omg.org/spec/SysML/20090817/SysML-profile.xmi."

Should this be referred to as a URI, not the namespace? Perhaps should simply reference the cover page of the spec since the one given here is out of date.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 31, 2014: received issue

Issue 19326: classifierBehaviorProperty and adjunctProperty notation (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
I cannot find new SysML 1.4  ClassifierBehaviorProperty and AdjunctProperty notation details, such as :


1. what keyword should be used? <<classifierBehaviorProperty>> which is very long, or maybe shorter version <<classifierBehavior>> ?  <<adjunctProperty>> ?


2. In what block compartments should it appear? Under generic “properties” or maybe should have their own new compartments?


3. Should we show “principal” value on adjunctProperty box?  If so, showing only the name is not so useful as showing an element kind too, like <<callBehaviorAction>> or <<parameter>>, so user can understand what it represents.


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 2, 2014: received issue

Issue 19328: Need clarification about possible configurations of the new ports introduced in SysML 1.3 and of their semantics (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NASA (Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette, nicolas.f.rouquette(at)jpl.nasa.gov)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Background:


SysML 1.3 introduced significant changes to SysML ports
MBSE methodologies based on SysML 1.2 need to be updated for SysML 1.3 and
later


A summary of syntactic and semantic variations for SysML 1.4 ports is an
important component for tailoring an MBSE methodology as an extension of
SysML 1.4
Independent of a particular MBSE methodology, such a summary is an
important guide for users and tool implementors.
For users, such a summary would help understand the capabilities and
limitations of a particular SysML tool implementation
For tool implementers, such a summary would help understand what
capabilities need to be implemented to support SysML


Issue: 



The  SysML 1.4 specification lacks a compact summary of the range of
syntactic variations allowed for SysML 1.4 ports
and the corresponding semantics for these syntactic variations


The SysML RTF should provide a catalogue of the syntactic factors that
induce the syntactic and semantic diversity of SysML ports


As of SysML 1.4, known factors include, but are not necessarily limited to:




1) SysML Port Kind


­{proxy, full, uncommitted}


2) SysML Port Type


­{InterfaceBlock, Block, ConstraintBlock}


3) UML Interaction modality


­(UML::Port::isService, UML::Port::isBehavior)


4) SysML Port Features & nesting


­Behavioral features: {operation, reception}


­Structural features:


{value, flow, reference, part, constraint, binding, participant,
connector, distributed, endPathMultiplicity, boundReference, adjunct,
classifierBehavior}


{property, port}


5) Nested SysML Ports (kind, type, modality, features)


6) Optional feature direction {provided, required, provided+required}


7) SysML Port Connectivity


­Internal vs. external connectors
­UML Connector kind (assembly, delegation)
­SysML Connector kind (binding, non-binding)
­SysML Connector type {none, UML::Association, SysML::Block +
UML::AssociationClass}
­SysML Association Block-typed Connector features & nesting
(same as SysML Port Features & nesting)


8) SysML ItemFlow


­Distinguishing what may flow in general vs. what actually flows in a
context

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 3, 2014: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 19412: Can a SysML Full Port be typed by a ValueType? (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NASA (Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette, nicolas.f.rouquette(at)jpl.nasa.gov)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Several users at JPL have been asking me about this particular combination.
I can't find anything in the 1.4 spec precluding typing a full port by a value type.


Have I missed anything?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 12, 2014: received issue

Issue 19489: [SysML] Semantic variation points (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Airbus Group (Mr. Yves Bernard, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Kind: Clarification

 

Description:

 

The current specification of SysML allows, in some places, variations on the semantics. For a part of them it is intentional because the standard does not want to enforce a specific one among others possible, for another part it is not and may result from ambiguities in the text which will have to be fixed.

 

It would be useful to explicitly and exhaustively identify the list of intentional semantic variation points so that users can easily see the choices they have to make and state them clearly.

 


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 26, 2014: received issue

Issue 19551: reception compartment not addressed (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Sparx Systems Pty Ltd (Mr. James D. Baker, omg(at)objectsandaspects.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The UML 2.5 specification, section 9.2.4, states in part, 
“The compartment named “receptions” contains notation for Receptions. The receptions compartment is mandatory and always appears below the operations compartment, if it is not suppressed. The receptions compartment is used for Classifiers that own Receptions, including Class (see 11.4).”

The SysML specification is silent regarding this compartment in blocks.  I suggest that the compartment be added to the list of compartments and if the label is going to be optional like the other block compartments, then this be explicitly stated in section 8.3 as something that is not included as part of UML4SYSL.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 29, 2014: received issue

Issue 19578: Need to define Requirement Relationship compartment (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Requirement relationships were originally intended to be optionally depicted in a compartment notation, in a manner similar to allocation relationships (see Table 15.1 on page 130).  Table 16.1 does not depict requirement compartment notation, but it is referenced in section 16.3.1.2 and 16.3.1.4.

Requirement relationship compartment notation needs to be fully elaborated in the spec, including additional elements in Table 16.1 and section 16.3.1, in a manner consistent with allocation compartment format in Chapter 15.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 14, 2014: received issue

Issue 19591: Precise expression of requirements (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: INCOSE (Mr. Sanford A. Friedenthal, safriedenthal(at)gmail.com)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Current requirements in SysML are expressed as text strings, which limit the ability to precisely express requirements that can be evaluated and verified. A more formal expression of requirements is needed that includes the ability to specify required input/output parameter relationships and/or constraints.  
A simple example is the specification of the required stopping distance of a vehicle as a function of the initial speed and the road conditions. The requirement can be specified in text, and augmented with an input/output parameter relationship as follows:


The Vehicle stopping distance shall not exceed the values in Table 1 as a function of initial speed and pavement condition.


Table 1 displays discrete values of start speed from 0-100 mph, pavement condition as wet or dry, and required stopping distance in feet.


TABLE 1 (not included)



An alternative expression in plot format can be:
The Vehicle stopping distance shall not exceed the values in Figure 1 as a function of initial speed and pavement condition.


 
Figure 1 shows plots of required stopping distance as a function of start speed and pavement conditions.  (NOT INCLUDED)


The input/output parameter relationship or constraint can be specified by an equation such as is the case for this example as follows:


Stopping distance <= (1/(2*32.174*alpha)*(5280*Initial Speed/3600)^2)
Start Speed = 0 …100


where:
        alpha
dry     0.8
wet     0.6


More generally, the input and output parameter values may be complex functions of other parameters, and may have probability distributions associated with them. 


A solution to this issue shall satisfy the following requirements:


1)      A requirement can be expressed in terms of input/output parameter relationships and/or constraints.
a)      The parameters can by typed by value types with units and quantity kinds
b)      The parameters can have direction to reflect whether they are inputs or outputs or no direction. The direction applies to a particular requirement context.
c)      The parameters can be specified over a range of values
d)      The parameters can have probability distributions
e)      There can be any number of parameters with directions of input, output, or none
f)      The relationship between the parameters can be expressed as a mathematical equation and presented in formats that include a mathematical or programming language, tables, and plots
g)      The parameters and parameter relationships and/or constraints can be expressed using parametrics


2)      A requirement can include an id and text statement consistent with current SysML requirements to elaborate the requirement specification. 
a)      The text can be parsed and linked to the parameters, values, and units


3)      A requirement can be reused in different contexts (this is subject to further debate)


4)      Consider adding precision to Tthe current text based requirement relationships apply as follows:
a)      One or more properties are asserted to satisfy a requirement when the input/output parametric relationships and/or constraints are satisfied 
b)      A test case that verifies a requirement proves the parametric relationship and/or constraint is satisfied through a verification method (e.g., inspection, analysis, test)
c)      A requirement is derived from another requirement when the parameters of one requirement are derived from the parameters of another requirement typically through some form of analysis
d)      A requirement refines one or more other requirements when it expresses the requirement more precisely. 
e)      The requirement can contain other requirements, which reflects the logical AND of those requirements unless stated otherwise.


5)      Maintain backward compatibility with current text based requirements, and or provide clear transformation rules for consistent vendor implementations


Initial Concept:
 A possible solution that has been proposed is to define a property based requirement as an extension of a constraint block. This stereotype includes and id and text property and other user defined properties, and incorporate other features that SysML requirements currently provide (e.g. notations, requirements relationships). The constraint expression reflects the required stopping distance equation above, and can be expressed like any other constraint using a mathematical or programming language.  In the parametric diagram below (2nd figure), the black box analysis on the right side of the figure is intended to be executed by an analysis tool, return an estimated stopping distance, and compare this result with the required values for stopping distance to determine a verdict of pass/fail.
 


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 28, 2014: received issue

Issue 19595: ElementGroup cannot be source or target of a dependency (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The stereotype ElementGroup extends the base class comment which is not a NamedElement. Therefore a ElementGroup can't be source or target of a dependency and it is not possible to use an ElementGroup for instance with a trace or satisfy relationship.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 7, 2014: received issue

Issue 19623: More than one View() operation allowed (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The viewpoint constraint about the View() operation allows more than one View() opwration:


[2] The property ownedOperation must include at least one operation named “View” with the UML Create stereotype
applied.


It is not specified what happens if there is more than one View() operation. For example:


* In which order are they performed? If only one View() operation is performed it is not defined which one.
* The wording of the derived property method is only about one operation ("of the operation").


As long no one has a good use case to have more than View() operation I propose to change constraint [2] to:


[2] The property ownedOperation must include exactly one operation named “View” with the UML Create stereotype
applied.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 27, 2014: received issue

Issue 19644: Inherit from a conjugated interface block (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Figure 9.7 shows that the types of parts that are connected with binding connectors with proxy ports inherit from the proxy port types. That assures that all the features of the interface block type of the proxy port are implemented by the part.

However in practice you typically have for most proxy ports also a connected conjugated proxy port. You can't inherit from a conjugated interface block and therefore must manually define a conjugated version of the interface block. In summary that supersedes the concept of conjugation.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 17, 2014: received issue

Issue 19757: RequirementRelated is present in the summary but no more in the document (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
RequirementRelated is present in the summary (16.3.2.4) but no more in the document 


=> The problem put all the section 16.3.2 in disorder


Also RequirementRelated is still present (as Deprecated) in the profile I'm working with 
(The one that will be used in eclipse-Papyrus).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 11, 2015: received issue

Issue 19764: Requirement ID should be immutable (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Requirement IDs, as currently specified by the standard and implemented by vendors, are not adequate to ensure robust traceability outside MBSE models. The standard describes ID as "The unique Id of the requirement”. I would suggest replacing this sentence with "The unique and immutable Id of the requirement." This immutable characteristic is key to ensure robust traceability throughout a project with external stakeholders and documents. 


The current practice of using a hierarchical number for the ID is bad practice that should be discouraged, because a hierarchical ID will necessary change when the hierarchy is refactored, which is almost guaranteed to happen. This breaks traceability. I recognize that there is also a need for a hierarchical ID, mainly to be used to sort requirement tables properly using this property. For that use case, I would suggest a new ID called HID with the following description: “A unique hierarchical identifier, used to organize requirements within a package”


Since we now have two different IDs that serve two different purposes, we should give guidance for which one should be used as the prefix in front of the name, depending of the context. My suggestion is as follows:
- In a traceability context, the ID should be the prefix shown in front of the name. For example, when showing the table column "Derived From", the ID should be the prefix shown, not the HID.
- In a hierarchical context (for example, in the containment tree), the HID should be shown as the prefix in front of the name.
- When in doubt, use the ID in preference over HID.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 29, 2015: received issue

Issue 19783: Expand use of rake symbol for all decompositions (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton (Mr. Michael J. Vinarcik, michael.vinarcik(at)incose.org)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
I’d like to advocate for rakes on Call Operation nodes (that have associated methods) in the next SysML rev.  We’re using operations extensively because they inherit nicely and have inputs/output parameters.  By moving to Call Operations from Call Behaviors, we lose the rake that’s a visible sign you can drill deeper…so by using Call Operations with methods instead of Call Behaviors, we lose that visual cue.  
I put a stereotype with icons on the nodes as a fix, but I’d love to see it as a native function.

I suggest that rake symbols should be expanded to include call operations on activity diagrams with methods attached (or any other situation in which drill-down is available).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 9, 2015: received issue

Issue 19813: NestedConnectorEnd violates UML "roles" constraint (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
UML's constraint "UML::Connector::role" specifies that ConnectorEnds need to point to roles/parts owned by the Connector's structuredClassifier (direct or inherited).


The specification draft 1.0 contained an explicit statement that SysML relaxed a limited number of the UML constraints ("roles" being one of them). This was e.g. mentioned in 0.11 on page 4 of document ad/2006-03-01.


In the current 1.4 beta, section 4.4 "Extension Mechanisms" doesn't mention contraint relaxation as one of the applied techniques.


Moreover, the specification of NestedConnectorEnd (8.3.1.2.6, 8.3.2.11) does not mention this relaxation either.

Without a formal statement about this relaxation, I would conclude that the SysML spec conflicts with the UML spec.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 30, 2015: received issue

Issue 19817: Spec document inconsistent with Normative profile XMI file ptc/2013-12-11 (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Spec document says:
7.3.2.6 Stakeholder


Description


A stakeholder represents a role, group or individual who has concerns that will be addressed by the View of the model.


Attributes


• concernList: Comment [*]


The interests of this stakeholder.


• /concern: String [*]


The interests of this stakeholder displayed as the body of the comments from concernList.


--
XMI file says something completely different


Stereotype Stakeholder
  concern: Comment [1..*]
  /concernlist : Comment

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 17, 2015: received issue

Issue 19836: Activity should not be included as graphical node included in activity diagrams (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Sparx Systems Pty Ltd (Mr. James D. Baker, omg(at)objectsandaspects.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Table 11.1 includes a set of concrete syntax symbols that are "graphical nodes included in activity diagrams."  One of these represents an Activity diagram.  Activity diagrams do not include activities as one of the possible nodes in the meta-model.  I suggest you remove that line of the table to make is clear that Activity Diagrams do not contain activities.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 24, 2015: received issue

Issue 19857: Satisfy, Verify and DeriveReqt could be used with non-requirement elements (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: ALSTOM (Mr. Wagner Mendes, wagner.schalch(at)alstom.com)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
SysML specification constraints the usage of Satisfy, Verify and DeriveReqt relationships to requirement model elements.
When in MBSE approach, textual requirements are most likely to be left aside and non-textual requirements start commonly being used. For example, an Activity can represent a functional requirement, as it has inputs, outputs and a processing that shows how inputs are transformed into outputs.
When using non-textual requirements, other model elements will start representing requirements. Therefore, those relationships should accept elements that are not SysML::Requirement model elements.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 24, 2015: received issue

Issue 19858: layout error for compartment name (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The "part" (name of the third compartment of the block Block1 in Table 8.1) exceeds its scope/space.                                                  Name:            Jingang Zhou
Employer:        Neusoft
mailFrom:        zjg_robin@hotmail.com

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 25, 2015: received issue

Issue 19859: Does the objectiveFunction stereotype generalizes the ConstraintBlock stereotype or UML::property? (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Section E.4 (non-normative) defines the objectiveFunction stereotype to describe objective functions for use in trade studies.  However, whereas Table E.5 defines the objectiveFunction stereotype to extend (or rather generalize) ConstraintBlock, this seems to be inconsistent with the parametric diagram on the same page where the objectiveFunction stereotype is (seems to be [*]) applied to the a constraintProperty instead.
Given the fact that constraintProperty is only 'loosely' defined in the spec (i.e. it is not part of the xmi file), the only viable alternative seems to be that objectivefunction extends uml::Property and adds the necessary constraints in order to warrant the fact that the type of the uml::Property is (stereotyped by) a ConstraintBlock...


Please clarify the definition of the objectiveFunction stereotype.

[*] Since there is no formal notation defined for objectiveFunction, one can of course merely guess...

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 30, 2015: received issue

Discussion:


Issue 19862: Missing one right parenthesis in the constraint equation (sysml-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The constraint "{v(n+1 = v(n)+a*32*3600/5280*dt}" for the containt block VelocityEquation in Figure D.34 lacks a right parenthesis, which results in error of the contraint.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 26, 2015: received issue