OMG System Modeling Language Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

OMG System Modeling Language — Open Issues

  • Acronym: SysML
  • Issues Count: 23
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
SYSML17-252 ConstraintBlock: abstract syntax consistency SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-251 Syntactical clarification for ConstraintBlock SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-258 No changebars in SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-257 Proposal: patent-friendly part/element numbering system with compliant solid line SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-248 The definition of AdjunctProperty SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-250 Should <> have a capital V? SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-249 Duplicate Elements in Table SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-182 Verdict described incorrecty SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-243 Refine / Trace relationship operations are too restrictive SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-242 VerdictKind should also have the literal none SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-181 VerdictKind enumeration missing SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-239 AllocateActivityPartition: Reference to UML specification is wrong SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-237 Precise Semantics for SysML SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-234 QUDV library inconsistently uses SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-233 Comments in the XMI have no annotated elements SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-232 Table 8.3: Row ActorPart shows Actor SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-231 ProxyPort property "matching" SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-222 Typo: Constraint name 8 of Adjunct Property SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-220 Bad reference in section 4.2 SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-218 Stakeholder constraint is listed twice SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-178 Virtual member representing the whole RTF SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-227 About Block constraint "3" removed by SysML v1.6 SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-214 Hidden constraints in description of PropertySpecificType SysML 1.6 open

Issues Descriptions

ConstraintBlock: abstract syntax consistency

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    Even if their respective specified semantics indicate that UML::Constraint::constrainedElement and the constraint parameters of a ConstraintBlock are similar, there is currently no constraint enforcing their consistency

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 5 Sep 2019 14:37 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 15:39 GMT
  • Attachments:

Syntactical clarification for ConstraintBlock

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    There is no clear statement saying how the expression that specifies the constraint is managed, even if we can imagine that the intent was to use the ownedRule for that purpose it's not formally stated.

    Assuming ownedRule is used, it's not specified either how to deal with ConstraintBlocks that would have more than one ownedRule (since the current specification only consider "one" constraint only)

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 5 Sep 2019 14:35 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 15:07 GMT

No changebars in

  • Status: open  
  • Source: The Aerospace Corporation ( Ryan Noguchi)
  • Summary:

    The version of the specification document that is supposed to have changebars does not appear to have any changebars or redlines. This makes it unnecessarily difficult to find out what has changed since the released 1.5 spec.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6b1 — Tue, 8 Oct 2019 18:16 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:18 GMT

Proposal: patent-friendly part/element numbering system with compliant solid line

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Webel ( Darren Kelly)
  • Summary:

    National patent offices require patent drawings in a very specific format. The “parts” of an invention must typically be numbered consistently, and always indicated with a solid line from each part number to the part.

    I have found many applications can be represented well as SysML Parts Property symbols, and with convenient correct propagation of part numbers across diagrams (Single Source of Truth).

    I have been re-appropriating Comment for this using the following diagramming “hack" in the MagicDraw/Cameo tool:

    • Use the Documentation field of a Part Property to hold each unique part number.
    • Use the Retrieve Documentation feature to display that part number in a Comment symbol (which is stereotyped «Documentation»).
    • The HACK: hide the border of the Comment by making it white against white background, and also hide the stereotype.

    But then you have to use an external image editing tool to tediously make the dashed lines all solid to meet the patent office's requirements.

    Note that UML2.5.1 states:

    'The connection to each annotatedElement is shown by a separate dashed line.’

    A refinement of this proposal might involve creating a special new dedicated SysML element to achieve this, with a dedicated attribute for carrying the numbering.

    It is beyond the scope of this initial proposal to specify how the capability might be achieved.

    The proposal is not limited to numbering and indicating SysML Part Properties typed by Blocks, it could be applied to other Element kinds, but Part Properties lend themselves immediately to the purpose.

    This proposal does not yet elaborate on how the numbering sequence might be handled (largely a tool feature matter).

    The section '7 Model Elements' is a candidate for specification of the new proposed element.

    [Diagrams illustrating the required result will be provided via JIRA once the proposal issue ticket is raised]

    Reference: IP Australia: Best Practice Guide: Appendix: Examples of Drawings: https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/sites/g/files/net856/f/best_practice_guide_appendix_iv.pdf

  • Reported: SysML 1.6b1 — Mon, 23 Sep 2019 17:35 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 15:56 GMT

The definition of AdjunctProperty

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Software Centre of Excellence, Rolls-Royce Div. ( Dave Banham)
  • Summary:

    The definition of AdjunctProperty states that "The AdjunctProperty stereotype can be applied to properties to constrain their values to the values of connectors typed by association blocks, call actions, object nodes, variables, parameters, interaction uses, and submachine states." However, the practical application to a modeler of these different types of adjunct properties is not made explicit in the text.

    For example, adjuncts of behavior parameters allows a block's behavior to be bound to its value properties, or those in its ports, and thus solves a long standing problem in the language prior to SysML 1.4.

    But when it comes to adjunct properties of activity object nodes the practical application is hard to determine and at the same time it breaks encapsulation by making the behavior's internal state visible and may have a significant impact on the efficiency of model simulation and generated code. The same concerns apply to activity variables.

    I am also mystified about the practical application for adjunct properties of interaction uses and sub-machine states (but not a state machine's states). It would be very useful to have a block property that enumerates the current state of an associated state-machine, but as it stands this is not possible by any means that I am aware of (other then by doing it explicitly inside the state-machine's model).

    Discuss.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 16:30 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:38 GMT

Should <> have a capital V?

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Boeing ( Alan Lee)
  • Summary:

    I'm not sure if this is actually an issue (I think it is). There are 2 keywords in Figure E.10: Spring Length Example; <<valueType>> and <<ValueType>>. Wondering if it is the same keyword and the latter should be lowercase v.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6b1 — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 16:29 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 18:47 GMT

Duplicate Elements in Table

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Boeing ( Alan Lee)
  • Summary:

    Elements starting from Namespace Compartment to InstanceSpecification (9 items Elements total) is listed twice in the 8.2.1 Block Definition Diagram: Table 8.1.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6b1 — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 16:03 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 18:46 GMT

Verdict described incorrecty

  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Clause 16.1 (Requirements, Overview, search on "verdict") refers to "A verdict property of a test case", but verdicts are return parameters, which aren't properties (unless this means an adjunct).

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:24 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 07:38 GMT

Refine / Trace relationship operations are too restrictive

  • Status: open  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Refine::getRefines(in ref : NamedElement) : AbstractRequirement should return NamedElement according to the definition of the refine stereotype in section 16.1. The body condition of the operation is not consistent with the return type AbstractRequirement.

    There is no constraint that restricts that one end of the refine relationship must be an element of type AbstractRequirement.

    Trace::getTracedFrom(in ref: NamedElement) : AbstractRequirement should return NamedElement according to the definition of the trace stereotype. The body condition should be updated as well from AbstractRequirement to NamedElement.

    The sentence in section 16.1 "A generic trace requirement relationship provides a general-purpose relationship between a requirement and any
    other model element." is too restrictive with regard to the definition of the trace stereotype.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6b1 — Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:04 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:04 GMT

VerdictKind should also have the literal none

  • Status: open  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    As defined in the UTP element Verdict, the SysML VerdictKind should also define an enumeration literal none:

    none The test case has not been executed yet.

    When a test case is not executed yet or just invoked, its verdict is none. None indicates that no communication between
    test components and the SUT has been carried out yet. None is the weakest verdict. It is never set by the tester directly.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6b1 — Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:58 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:59 GMT

VerdictKind enumeration missing

  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    VerdictKind appears in a constraint on TestCase and in Table 4.3 (SysML stereotypes, blocks, valuetypes, and datatypes), but isn't defined in the spec. I should be in a model library, like ControlValueKind (see 11.3.3.1 Package ControlValues).

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:20 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:59 GMT

AllocateActivityPartition: Reference to UML specification is wrong

  • Status: open  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The second constraint of the stereotype AllocateActivityPartition references a section in the UML specification:

    "To depict this kind of direct responsibility, the modeler is directed to the UML 2 standard, sub clause 12.3.10, "ActivityPartition," Semantics topic."

    Subclause 12.3.10 does not exist. It is probably 15.6.3.1 in UML 2.5.1.

    I propose to remove the subclause reference number.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6b1 — Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:50 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:51 GMT

Precise Semantics for SysML

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    Clarify the executable semantics of SysML Stereotypes

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:01 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:01 GMT

QUDV library inconsistently uses SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes

  • Status: open  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6b1 — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:34 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:38 GMT

Comments in the XMI have no annotated elements

  • Status: open  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The comments in the XMI that specify the documentation of the stereotypes and stereotype attributes do not annotate the elements they document.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6b1 — Fri, 7 Jun 2019 06:50 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 15:01 GMT

Table 8.3: Row ActorPart shows Actor

  • Status: open  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The row ActorPart in table 8.3 should depict SysML::Blocks::PartProperty typed by UML4SysML::Actor, but it shows an Actor.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6b1 — Sat, 18 May 2019 17:37 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 18 May 2019 17:37 GMT

ProxyPort property "matching"

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Software Centre of Excellence, Rolls-Royce Div. ( Dave Banham)
  • Summary:

    [From email to sysml-rtf@omg.org 7-May-2019, and discussed at the SysML RTF meeting 9-May-2019.]

    The situation of a proxy port's InterfaceBlock having multiple flow properties, and may be also multiple value properties, leads to the vexing question of how they all get paired up with [the] port's owning blocks' features. Putting aside behaviour ports (isBehavior=true), the most straightforward solution would be to use a binding connector between each feature in the proxy port and the actual features in the owning block. However, I find the public draft of SysML 1.6 to still not be completely clear on this matter, despite its improvements to the chapter on ports and flows.

    The section on FlowPorperty (9.3.2.8) refers to property matching (2nd paragraph), but does not contextualise when property matching might occur. Most of what it states makes perfect sense in the context of connected proxy ports, especially when the ports have the same type (i.e. an InterfaceBlock) and one port is conjugated. However, it becomes remarkably unclear what it means when matching is applied to the proxy port and its owning block's flow properties.

    The section on Proxy Ports (9.3.2.13), replaces the later part of the first paragraph with a subsequent paragraph to spell out how a proxy port relates to its owning block, but seems to do this in a weak way by stating "This can be achieved in several ways. For instance by...", which sounds informative, rather than normative. Nevertheless it does state "by binding it to a fully specified internal part or by having all its properties individually bound to internal parts."

    If a proxy port is bound to an internal part, is there a need for the port's type to match that of the bound part? If not, what are the rules for feature matching?

    If a proxy port's "properties [are] individually bound to internal parts", then dose the meaning of "part" extend to the block's value properties and flow properties? (I wouldn't ordinarily consider them to be parts.) If not then where does it state that these properties can be bound?

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 9 May 2019 14:13 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 9 May 2019 14:13 GMT

Typo: Constraint name 8 of Adjunct Property

  • Status: open  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Name of constraint 8 is "8_callAction_composite_and_consitent_type",
    but should be "8_callAction_composite_and_consistent_type".

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:35 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

Bad reference in section 4.2

  • Status: open  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    At the end of section 4.2 is an unresolved reference:

    "UnitAndQuantityKind, see Erreur : source de la référence non trouvée"

    Replace it with

    UnitAndQuantityKind, see 8.3.3.2

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:39 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

Stakeholder constraint is listed twice

  • Status: open  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The Stakeholder constraint 1_not_association is listed twice in the specification document and the XMI.

    One constraint is named "1_not_association" the other one "not_association".

    Remove the "not_association" constraint.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 19 Mar 2019 21:34 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

Virtual member representing the whole RTF

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    Would it be possible to create a special member in the RTF with no voting right (i.e. "assistant") , whose has the sysml-rtf@omg.org for email address?

    By adding it to the "watch this issue" list it would then become possible to notify the whole RTF automatically.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 17 Jan 2019 13:48 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

About Block constraint "3" removed by SysML v1.6

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    Ed Seidewitz caught this:
    While researching a question forwarded to me by Sandy, I noticed what seems to be an inconsistency in the SysML 1.6 specification. SysML 1.5 included the following constraint under the Block stereotype:

    [3] In the UML metamodel on which SysML is built, any instance of the Property metaclass that is typed by a block (a Class with the «block» stereotype applied) and which is owned by an Association must [sic] not have a name and may not be defined as a navigable owned end of the association. (While the Property has a “name” property as defined by its NamedElement superclass, the value of the “name” property, which is optional, must be missing.)

    However, this constraint has been removed from the SysML 1.6 spec (and it is not included in the XMI).

    Issue SYSML16-310, which was merged into the resolution of SYSML16-274, addresses this constraint. In the comments on 310, Yves made a suggestion to remove the constraint, but then added a subsequent comment that reads: “Discussed during RTF weekly meeting on Sep 21: Ok for deleting the fits part of the sentence: "In the UML metamodel on which SysML is built" but any other change requires a separate issue” (SYSM16-310 - comment-17892, 21/Sep/17). There is also an earlier comment on the resolution to SYSML16-295 that notes “We had a discussion about constraint[3]. It seems the be not correct. Yves or Conrad will file an issue about that.” (SYSML16-295/SYSML16-297 - comment-17815, 31/Aug/17])

    But I cannot find any separate issue that was actually filed to remove constraint 3. The constraint was simply not included in the revised text in the resolution of SYSML16-274, and hence ended up being left out of the SysML 1.7 beta spec.

    So, there does not seem to be an apparent intent of the RTF to remove this constraint in SysML 1.6. Indeed, the following paragraph remains in the description section of subclause 8.3.2.3 Block in the 1.6 spec:

    “SysML excludes variations of associations in UML in which navigable ends can be owned directly by the association. In SysML, navigation is equivalent to a named property owned directly by a block. The only form of an association end that SysML allows an association to own directly is an unnamed end used to carry an inverse multiplicity of a reference property. This unnamed end provides a metamodel element to record an inverse multiplicity, to cover the specific case of a unidirectional reference that defines no named property for navigation in the inverse direction. SysML enforces its equivalence of navigation and ownership by means of constraints that the block stereotype enforces on the existing UML metamodel.”

    This is text certainly no longer true without constraint 3, and I would have expected it to have been removed or updated if there had actually been an affirmative resolution to remove the constraint.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 11 Apr 2019 13:24 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 13:35 GMT

Hidden constraints in description of PropertySpecificType

  • Status: open  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The description of the PropertySpecificType states:

    The PropertySpecificType stereotype can be applied to classifiers that type exactly one property and that are owned by the owner of that property. Classifiers with this stereotype applied shall be generalized by at most one
    other classifier.

    The constraint section covers only "can be applied to classifiers that type exactly one property". The other constraints

    "that are owned by the owner of that property."
    and
    "Classifiers with this stereotype applied shall be generalized by at most one
    other classifier."

    are missing.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:25 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 10:25 GMT