To make the case for updating CSRM stereotypes. Once agreement is reached, updates to the CSRM Specification will be developed.
This is a big deal and needs lots of discussion.

Figures 1 lists CSRM element stereotypes. Black font denotes current baseline as captured in the normative CSRM Profile. Blue font denotes recommended additions.

Figure 2 lists requirement elements related properties that are part of the SysML language.

Figure 3 illustrates one of many ways to establish relationships between the mission stakeholders, requirements, technical measures, and use cases stereotypes. These stereotypes are denoted by italicized font in Figure 1.
The relationships are captured in the element specifications and are displayed and maintained in diagrams and tables as shown in Figure 1.
Object Constraint Language

There has been discussion about codifying the allowable relationships using Object Constraint Language (OCL). OCL is a declarative language describing rules applying to Unified Modeling Language (UML) models. For example, a refine relationship can exist between a requirement. and any other model element, whereas a derive relationship can only exist between requirements.

That could be done founded on the examples in Figure 3. This would be of limited benefit. A mission team will be using the stereotypes and relationships best suited to their mission and the stereotypes in Figure 3 are very limited as compared to Figure 1.

A case could be made to established relationships for the stereotypes in Figure 1. But that is out-of-Scope for the SSWG CSRM effort.

An Issue that Needs Resolution.

The intent of defining addition stereotypes as shown in Figure 1 is to provide stereotypes for a variety of mission architectures. However, several of the stereotypes are identified as CubeSat stereotypes. But they are not unique to CubeSats. The only thing that makes a model a CubeSat model is the incorporation of a CubeSat form factor such as the Cal Poly CubeSat Design Specification.

My recommendation is to rename the stereotypes as show in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Renaming of Stereotypes (Proposed name changes from Figure 1)
CubeSatRequirement SatelliteRequirement
CubeSatSubsystemRequirement SatelliteSubsystemRequirement
CubeSatComponentRequirement SatelliteComponentRequirement
CubeSatUseCase SatelliteUseCase
CubeSatSubsystemUseCase SatelliteSubsystemUseCase

Close because this was against beta

This issue is no longer relevant. Should have been closed in FTF instead of deferred.

We are missing the comments to source and risk of ExtRequirement. The elements also need to be printed in the specification. Other tag definitions are also not printed and thus need to be displayed.

*Add comments to 7.6.3 ExtRequirement *

Add the following text to 7.6.3 after the Generalization section. To be clear, when complete with all changes we have for 7.6.3, paragraph should look like this:

Description
The «ExtRequirement» is a mix-in stereotype that contains generally useful attributes for requirements.
Note: This stereotype should be used instead of the «extendedRequirement» in the SysML non-normative extension of SysML
Generalization:
• SysML::Requirements::Requirement
Attributes
• risk : RiskKind - Risk level of the requirement.
• source : String - Source (originating person and/or organization) of the requirement.
• /validatedBy : ValidationActivity[0..*] - The validatedBy is derived from all elements that are the client of a «validation» relationship for which this requirement is a supplier.
Operations:
• getValidatedBy - The query getValidatedBy() returns all the NamedElements that are suppliers ( "to" end) of a «Validation» relationship whose client is the element input parameter, ref.
specification:
Validate.allInstances()->select(base Abstraction.client=ref).base_Abstraction.supplier

Need to add documentation of MeasurementSpecification.summary (paragraph 7.28) and fix MeasurementSpecification.id missing documentation.

The summary element is missing documentation.
The id incorrectly indicates that it is the id of a requirement, rather than a MeasurementSpecification.

Add documentation to summary and fix documentation in summary

Add/change documentation as follows to the model and to the specification:

MeasurementSpecification.summary
add documentation: The summary is a textual description of constraints, and measurement activities used to provide insight into the progress made in the definition and development of the technical solution, risks, and issues.

MeasurementSpecification.id
From: The unique id of the requirement.
to: The id of the MeasurementSpecification.

VerificationActivity.verificationMethod is missing documentation.

Proposed fix: add documentation to
The verificationMethod property indicates the primary method that VerificationActivity uses to verify a Requirement.

add documentation to VerificationMethod and show attributes of VerificationActivity

Change to: 7.4.3 VerificationActivity
Add the following text to 7.4.3:
In the profile, add documentation to the verifies attribute of <<VerificationActivity>>:

The requirements that this VerificationActivity verifies.

Add previously undocumented attributes (verificationMethod and verifies) of <<VerificationActivity>>: to the specification by adding the revised text to paragraph 7.4.3.

As the spec already has a reference to the machine-readable file, this line is redundant.

This line in paragraph 2 should be removed:

dtc/22-04-06 - CSRM Profile - XMI File (see the description in Section 6)

Reported by Pete Rivett during FTF review.

Remove the following text in section 2 Conformance

Remove the following text in section 2 Conformance

dtc/22-04-06 - CSRM Profile - XMI File (see the description in Section 6)

Clarify the use of the Group stereotype.
Pete Rivette wrote:
7.1.12 says that <<Group>> groups related requirements but not which property is used to achieve that.

Add Clairifying info and paragraph to documentation of 7.1.12 Group

Change the existing documentation of 7.1.12 Group to help understand how the element is used and examples of use.

To make the case for updating CSRM stereotypes. Once agreement is reached, updates to the CSRM Specification will be developed.
This is a big deal and needs lots of discussion.

Figures 1 lists CSRM element stereotypes. Black font denotes current baseline as captured in the normative CSRM Profile. Blue font denotes recommended additions.

Figure 2 lists requirement elements related properties that are part of the SysML language.

Figure 3 illustrates one of many ways to establish relationships between the mission stakeholders, requirements, technical measures, and use cases stereotypes. These stereotypes are denoted by italicized font in Figure 1.
The relationships are captured in the element specifications and are displayed and maintained in diagrams and tables as shown in Figure 1.
Object Constraint Language

There has been discussion about codifying the allowable relationships using Object Constraint Language (OCL). OCL is a declarative language describing rules applying to Unified Modeling Language (UML) models. For example, a refine relationship can exist between a requirement. and any other model element, whereas a derive relationship can only exist between requirements.

That could be done founded on the examples in Figure 3. This would be of limited benefit. A mission team will be using the stereotypes and relationships best suited to their mission and the stereotypes in Figure 3 are very limited as compared to Figure 1.

A case could be made to established relationships for the stereotypes in Figure 1. But that is out-of-Scope for the SSWG CSRM effort.

An Issue that Needs Resolution.

The intent of defining addition stereotypes as shown in Figure 1 is to provide stereotypes for a variety of mission architectures. However, several of the stereotypes are identified as CubeSat stereotypes. But they are not unique to CubeSats. The only thing that makes a model a CubeSat model is the incorporation of a CubeSat form factor such as the Cal Poly CubeSat Design Specification.

My recommendation is to rename the stereotypes as show in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Renaming of Stereotypes (Proposed name changes from Figure 1)
CubeSatRequirement SatelliteRequirement
CubeSatSubsystemRequirement SatelliteSubsystemRequirement
CubeSatComponentRequirement SatelliteComponentRequirement
CubeSatUseCase SatelliteUseCase
CubeSatSubsystemUseCase SatelliteSubsystemUseCase

Defer to RTF

Defer to RTF

Per standard process, Section 0 (zero) is to be removed from the Finalized document.,

Change already made by OMG editor

Closing subtask that was created by mistake..