UPDM — Stereotyped Dependencies too limiting

Practitioner's Perspective:
Example from SysML:
16.3.2.7 Verify
Description
A Verify relationship is a dependency between a requirement and a test case that can determine whether a system fulfills the requirement. As with other dependencies, the arrow direction points from the (client) test case to the (supplier) requirement.
Constraints
[1]The supplier must be an element stereotyped by "requirement" or one of "requirement" subtypes.
[2]The client must be an element stereotyped by "testCase" or one of the "testCase" subtypes.
Generally, SysML practitioners (the RFC participants are the developers and implementers of SysML) do not contemplate instance modelling and therefore dependencies suffice when every concept of the domain is modelled at the "Classifier" level. However, if one wanted to create an instance of a TestCase that had specific parameters and a Requirement that had details for that particular instance, then the association between the two specified by the Verify relationship would not be available to the modeller. Certainly a new dependency could be drawn, but that is not related to the dependency between the classifiers.
This may not seem to be a big problem to modellers who can draw lots of arrows and boxes, but it severely limits the much larger requirement of being able to use the models in decision support activities and producing ad hoc queries and reports.
Furthermore, using Dependencies to model domain concepts is contrary to the semantics of Dependency and Association expressed UML 2.0 spece.
Bottom Line: The use of stereotyped dependencies in the RFC proposal based on SysML approach eliminates the power, flexibility and market opportunities that the use of stereotyped association have in UPDM Beta2.

No Data Available