OMG System Modeling Language Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

OMG System Modeling Language — Open Issues

  • Acronym: SysML
  • Issues Count: 13
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Descriptions

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

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

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

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

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

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: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 10:46 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

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, 14 Mar 2019 14:40 GMT