SYSML14 — Missing/wrong elements in diagram table (InformationFlows)

Table 9.1, ItemFlow: The concrete syntax shows elements from an ibd. But table 9.1. is about bdd.

SysML also includes the concept of InformationFlows from UML (compliance level 3). The concrete syntax for an InformationItem or InformationFlow is missing.

The concrete syntax column in the Table 9.1 row for Item Flow was a copy and paste
mistake in the final published version of SysML 1.3. It did not correctly implement the
resolution for Issue 16635 in ballot 4 of the SysML 1.3 RTF. The correct figure
appears in the SysML 1.3 RTF Final Report (ptc/2011-11-08), but not in the beta
specification (convenience) documents that accompanied this final report (ptc/2011-
11-09 and ptc/2011-11-10).
Correct the concrete syntax column which appears in the ItemFlow row of Tables 9.1
and 9.2 to contain the figures already approved by the SysML 1.3 RTF in its
resolution of Issue 16635.
This resolution only corrects the error in producing the correct version of SysML 1.3,
as raised by the first paragraph of this issue. This urgent fix should not be delayed by
the question raised by the second paragraph of this issue, on whether the UML
concept and concrete syntax for InformationFlows is included in SysML.
The second paragraph of the issue is correct that SysML specification does not show
all forms of UML concrete syntax for UML InformationItem and InformationFlow. In
particular, UML has dashed-line notations for information flows and items, as well as
«flow» , «information», and «representation» keywords, which were never included in
SysML from its original submission.
A separate issue can be raised to address support for UML information flows, or to
update the contents of Clause 5, which contains the tables that define the current
SysML 1.3 compliance levels.
Note that the compliance definitions in Clause 5 will need to be updated in any event
to reflect the change in UML 2.5 that “The compliance levels L0, L1, L2, and L3 have been eliminated, because they were not found to be useful in practice.” (UML 2.5
FTF convenience documents, ptc/2013-09-05 and ptc/2013-09-06.) Again, separate
issues can be filed to address the need for these additional changes