OMG System Modeling Language Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

OMG System Modeling Language — Closed Issues

  • Acronym: SysML
  • Issues Count: 229
  • Description: Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board
Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
SYSML17-132 ConnectorProperty notation in wrong section. SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-147 Diagram formality confusion SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-140 Causality of constraints in parametric diagrams SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-136 SysML XMI typos in UML StandardProfile XMI references SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-135 No support for dot notation in activity and sequence diagrams SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-162 Add signal to constraint [1] for DistributedProperty SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-133 Copy, DeriveReqt don't have operations, but Refine, Satisfy, Trace, Verify do. SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-154 Clarification of typing a binding connector SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-155 Inconsistency in the DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath specification SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-153 Replace all occurrences of "has been" by "is" SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-161 Add Graphical notation for General Classifier SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-169 Diagram header is not intuitively interpreted SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-175 Do not move deprecated elements SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-184 Inappropriate character for multiplying symbol with combined units SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-214 Hidden constraints in description of PropertySpecificType SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-163 Excluded UML metaclasses are not formally defined SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-171 DistributedProperty shall have an operation that checks whether a value is conform to the constraints of the distribution SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-164 SysML 1.6 should be based on UML 2.5.1 SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-149 FullPort type SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-271 Typos/editorials found in the SysML 1.6 specification document SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-237 Precise Semantics for SysML SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-170 DistributedProperty should be abstract SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-168 DistributedProperty should be abstract SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML17-99 Unclear is StructuredActivityNode owned Actions should be Allocated SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-104 Pull semantics for flow properties SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-95 Clarification required for Copy relationship SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-97 primitive types in SysML Activities SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-114 Need clarification about possible configurations of the new ports introduced in SysML 1.3 and of their semantics SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-111 Abstract syntax for the initial values SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-123 Does the objectiveFunction stereotype generalizes the ConstraintBlock stereotype or UML::property? SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-113 classifierBehaviorProperty and adjunctProperty notation SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-116 [SysML] Semantic variation points SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-105 Depletive/non-depletive semantics of ReadStructuralFeatureActions on FlowProperties SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-112 URI for the SysML Profile given in section E.3 is wrong SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-106 Semantics clarification for removing a value from an out Flow Property SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-102 SysML says nothing about how to deal with multiplicity for flow properties matching SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-124 ISO-80000 ValueType stereotype applications have wrong unit and quantityKind values SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-127 Resolve inconsistency concerning restricion of ItemFlow type hierarchy SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-128 Make ItemFlow a specialization of DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-118 Table 12.1 has incorrect "int" typed arguments (4x) SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-115 Can a SysML Full Port be typed by a ValueType? SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-129 Definition of SysML stereotypes: association ends versus attributes SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-131 Parts, references, values compartments in wrong section SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-126 specializations of requirement should specialize AbstractRequirement SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-72 SysML XMI seems to define its own versions of UML Primitive Types rather than reusing those from UML SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-80 Missing ownership constraints SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-65 Content of Requirement::/tracedTo SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-81 Missing type constraints for FullPort SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-56 Description of Item Flows SysML 1.2 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-54 Blocks cannot own items flows SysML 1.2 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-83 SysML stereotype notation creates ambiguity about to which element is the stereotype applied SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-88 9.3.2.4 direction of ports and their notation (second issue) SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-89 Figures 15.5 and 15.6 diagram types SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-96 Semantics of multiple Dependencies SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-91 Allocated notation on object nodes missing from diagram elements table SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-87 9.3.2.4 direction of ports SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-84 VerdictKind SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-92 Libraries package should be named "SysML Model Libraries" SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-58 Item flows can have multiple types but item properties cannot SysML 1.2 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-110 Update to Trace Relationship’ SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-100 The SysML classification of properties is incomplete SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-107 proxy and full port notation change request SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-85 Figure 15.8 diagram type SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-90 Allocation tabular notation normative? SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-37 callout notation issues SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-42 Flow properties and activity paramters SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-36 Proposal to have a stereotype for reference nested property SysML 1.1 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-44 SysML 1.2 Issues: Default stereotype on unlabeled box is not always optimal SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-43 SysML 1.2 Issue Viewpoint referencing other viewpoints properties SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-40 Ability for a binding connector to be typed SysML 1.1 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-38 Binding to multiplicity in parametrics SysML 1.1 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-41 Inheriting Allocations SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-64 Can Enumerations be used on parametric diagrams for typing constraint parameters SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-46 Continuous flows in non-streaming situations with >1 multiplicities SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-47 SysML 1.2 Issues: Optional with streaming SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-53 Another issue with allocate SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-45 SysML 1.2 Issues: DistributedProperties on Activates SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-51 SysML Issue on Multiplicity of Use Case Communication Associations SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-49 SysML Issue based on UML 15369 SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-50 SysML Issue representation of properties as associations SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-48 Figure B.35 object nodes SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-75 Callout notation for port-specific types and initial values SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-69 Question about the Activity decomposition in Block Definition Diagrams SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-79 Interface blocks and protocols SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-5 Timing diagrams SysML 1.0 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-34 Allocations should not generate dependencies SysML 1.1 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-31 Binding Relationships require unit conversions SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-35 Table 16.2 (top of pg. 146): Trace Dependency concrete syntax diagram incorrect SysML 1.1 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-16 ItemFlows support on Activity & Interaction Diagrams SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-14 Diagram interchange SysML 1.0 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-33 AllocateActivityPartition and UML 2 semantics SysML 1.1 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-15 Inferred Allocation on Allocate Activity Partitions SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-4 the use of <> is still unclear and inconsistent SysML 1.0 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-28 SysML: Operations on Activities need to be callable (e.g., start, restart, cancel) SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-27 SysML: Activity Properties should be accessible in Activity diagrams for decision making SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-166 Inconsistency between xmi and pdf for Trace and Refine specializations SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-519 PDF Specification of SystemOfQuantities not consistent with XMI SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-429 Figure E-6 is identical with E-5 SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-185 Sample problem diagrams are inconsistent, need to refactor from integrated model SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-94 Diagram show inconsistent data SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML17-493 Missing relationship between SystemOfUnits and Units SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-13 SysML: Interaction diagram and Data-based comm of SysML SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-9 BindingConnector ends multiplicity SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-8 Issue: Nested connector ends SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Deferred closed
SYSML17-510 The description of the semantics for the Overwrite stereotype is not consistent SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-63 TestCase should use PackageMerge SysML 1.2 SysML 1.7 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML17-7 standard way to describe a flow of data in sequence diagrams SysML 1.0 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-222 Typo: Constraint name 8 of Adjunct Property SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-173 Combined call-out notation not allowed SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML17-492 The NoBuffer specification makes a wrong statement about the UML semantics SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-427 Fix figure e-5 SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-255 BDD representation of activity hierarchy SysML 1.5b1 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-458 QUDV: PrefixedUnit has no quantity kind SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-499 NoBuffer has no effect if it is applied on an input pin SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-21 Annex B / Figure B27 SysML 1.0 SysML 1.7 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML17-23 Annex B / Figure B.38 SysML 1.0 SysML 1.7 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML17-93 Don't use the optional notation for Pins with Allocation SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML17-22 Annex B / Figure B.35 SysML 1.0 SysML 1.7 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML17-25 Figure B.34 and Figure B.35 SysML 1.0 SysML 1.7 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML17-61 parameter of the constraint block StraightLineVehicleDynamics shown in figure B.31 seems to be incomplete SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML17-60 Where have stereotypes been defined? SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML17-24 Annex B, Figure B.29 SysML 1.0 SysML 1.7 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML17-12 Sample problem: Parts are added directly into package SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML17-521 PDF Specification of SystemOfUnits not consistent with XMI SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-355 'Figure 15-4: Behavior Allocation' multiple issues in the diagram and the supporting text SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-2 SysML: UML Qualified Associations SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-453 Figure E.8 depicts instance specifications with invalid slots SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-447 QUDV: SystemOfUnits constraint systemOfQuantitiesIncludesAllUnitsQuantityKinds not documented in PDF SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-29 Requirements interchange issue SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML17-460 Figure E.11: Make it a package diagram and update the URI's SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-445 QUDV: Constraints [1] and [2]of SystemOfUnits are operations SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-74 clarification, what "part property" is SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-449 QUDV: SystemOfUnits::accessibleQuantityKinds() is a copy & paste error SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-441 SimpleQuantityKind::dependsOnQuantityKinds() not specified as a redefinition SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-451 QUDV: Documentation of SystemOfUnits::getUnit() is missing SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-465 Figure E.19 not consistent with XMI SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-77 Contradiction regarding allowed use of the derived indicator for constraint parameters SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-172 ConnectorProperty is redundant SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-506 Annex D (Sample problem) should illustrate a nominal usage of the corresponding version of SysML SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-251 Syntactical clarification for ConstraintBlock SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML17-73 9.3.2.9 What is InterfaceBlock? SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-103 SysML Issues on Item Property values in an IBD SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML17-439 Return parameters of operations in annex E.5.2 have wrong parameter direction SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-148 Owning Block definition is unclear SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-11 It is not allowed in UML to display stereotypes of related elements SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-409 Figure 8-1: Wrong property notation SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-433 QUDV::LinearConversionUnit constraint isInvertible=true SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-431 QUDV::AffineConversionUnit constraint isInvertible=true SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-421 Description of SysMLStructureDiagram is missing SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-297 Figure 11-14 is identical with figure 11-13 SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-411 Figure 9-5 is identical with figure 9-4 SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-443 QUDV: dependOnUnits() operation is not redefined SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-415 Incorrect placement of sections in chapter 17 SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-425 Section C.3.2.3 should not be a section, but only a headline without numbering SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-417 Figure 13-1 shows two identical names in the same namespace SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-419 Figure 12-1 shows two identical names in the same namespace SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-423 Remove second constraint of SysMLBehaviorDiagram SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-59 Definition of part SysML 1.2 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-435 QUDV.xmi: Prefix::symbol multiplicity should be 0..1 SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-137 Missing comment for some attributes SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-139 Derived attribute should also be read only SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-52 SysML primitive value types SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-1 SysML: Protocol State Machines needed SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML17-317 Incorrect description of SysMLBlockDefinitionDiagram SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-109 Convention for enumeration not used for ControlValue SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-141 "Allocated From" should be "Allocated" SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-6 Block namespace compartment: Are external relationships allowed SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-30 Representation of nested object nodes in activity diagrams SysML 1.1 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-232 Table 8.3: Row ActorPart shows Actor SysML 1.6b1 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-310 Figure 9-5 and 9-4 are the same SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-152 Parameter direction typo in XMI SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-150 Owned properties of an InterfaceBlock SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-17 10.3.1.2 Parametric Diagram: square box notation SysML 1.0 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-39 Do parametric bindings observe derived and read-only properties SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-18 Annex B / B.4.8.3 Activity Diagram (in sample problem) SysML 1.0 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-76 SysML: References to CreateEvent incorrect SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-101 About Rate, Continuous and Discrete SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML17-55 IBD notation doesn't distinguish item properties from connector labels SysML 1.2 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-62 Association owning ends SysML 1.2 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-289 Allocate: Error in operation bodies SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-266 UML::ExceptionHandler should be part of SysML SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-3 SysML: Generalizing Activites SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-145 Shared parts are still parts SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML17-218 Stakeholder constraint is listed twice SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-70 Error in pending 1.3 diagram 15.6 and elsewhere SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-220 Bad reference in section 4.2 SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-10 Lack of notation for units and dimensions on values. SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-26 SysML: Align SysML Activities with Foundational UML SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-160 DirectedFeature is confusing SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-181 VerdictKind enumeration missing SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-151 The AdjunctProperty is not clearly described SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-159 Reference Properties do not reference properties SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-239 AllocateActivityPartition: Reference to UML specification is wrong SysML 1.6b1 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-156 Replace UML4SysML::Kernel by UML4SysML::Generalization SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-176 SysML::Trace relationship is not specialized from UML::Trace in the XMI SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-177 SysML::Refine relationship is not specialized from UML::Refine in the XMI SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-182 Verdict described incorrecty SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-157 Typos/editorials found in the SysML 1.5 specification document SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-167 Description of AdjunctProperty SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML17-120 Inherit from a conjugated interface block SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-117 ElementGroup cannot be source or target of a dependency SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML17-122 Property path notation SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-134 AllocateActivityPartition should be more formaly related to allocation Relationship SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML17-125 A discarded resolution still appears in the ballot SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML17-142 Requirement ID should be immutable SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML17-144 Specify a specific part from a collection of parts on an IBD SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML17-143 Expand use of rake symbol for all decompositions SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML17-174 Connectors are not allowed in bdd SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Resolved closed
SYSML17-146 Numeric Literals as constraint block property parameter values SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML17-158 Statements missing in the abstract syntax description SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-130 Description of model elements in generated document not consistent with specification SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-165 Typo in revised text of issue SYSML16-289 SysML 1.5 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-121 Missing property descriptions for Probability and Rate SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-57 SysML Issue on Refine limitations SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-68 SysML's PrimitiveValueTypes library is missing "value" properties everywhere SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML17-178 Virtual member representing the whole RTF SysML 1.6 SysML 1.7 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML17-71 Property Based Requirements SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-32 Support BDD's for State Machines SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-86 Inability to specify partial allocation and requriements satisfaction SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML17-98 ProxyPort with FlowProperties SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-20 Annex B / Figure B.9 SysML 1.0 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-78 How to refer to properties of an extension? SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML17-66 InstanceSpecifications for exactly one instance SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML17-67 InstanceSpecification equality SysML 1.3 SysML 1.7 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML17-138 Hanging Clauses Throughout SysML 1.4 SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-108 Deprecate Unit and QuantityKind stereotypes in 1.4 SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-119 More than one View() operation allowed SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML17-82 Fix the notation (hopefully in the same way as UML) to allow allocation of a decision to a swimlane SysML 1.4 SysML 1.7 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML17-19 Annex B / Figure B.10 SysML 1.0 SysML 1.7 Closed; No Change closed

Issues Descriptions

ConnectorProperty notation in wrong section.

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

    The diagram extension in the second paragraph of 8.3.2.6 (ConnectorProperty), should be in 8.3.1.2 (Internal Block Diagram).

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 23 Sep 2016 21:47 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Diagram formality confusion

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

    Annex A "Diagrams", whilst /informative/, sets out a confusing definition of the diagram types.

    On the one hand, there are nine SysML diagram types that have "model elements and corresponding concrete syntax", with each diagram kind cross referenced to the specific clause defining a specific part of the SysML modelling language. So for example an activity diagram "represents" (by virtue of the appropriate nodes and paths) the model elements and connectors described in the Activities clause (clause 11).

    On the other hand, there is the weaselly statement "Although the [diagram]taxonomy provides a logical organization for the various major kinds of diagrams, it does not preclude the careful mixing of different kinds of diagram types". A similar remark can be found in UML 2.5 in the form of a note in it's Annex A "Diagrams" section:
    "NOTE. This taxonomy provides a logical organization for the various major kinds of diagrams. However, it does not preclude mixing different kinds of diagram types, as one might do when one combines structural and behavioural elements (e.g., showing a state machine nested inside an internal structure). Consequently, the boundaries between the various kinds of diagram types are not strictly enforced."

    So, despite Annex A being informative, it creates at least two possible interpretations for tools to implement:
    1. A diagram can present representations of any model element and connector, or
    2. Only the specific model elements associated directly with a diagram kind (according to Annex A) can be represented on a diagram with a specific kind.

    Case 1 would allow all manner of diagrammatic mixing of model elements from the different semantic clauses, even when these clauses do not allow for any logical connection. However, it might allow an activity diagram to show a «Block» with an owned activity model. It would also allow a use case diagram to include a «Block» connected with a communications path to a use case node (since neither the use case or block clauses seem to set out a constraint to prevent this in the model).

    Case 2 would only allow the model elements from the directly associated clause along with the model elements that are common to all diagrams. This is a strict implementation, but may have consequences where more flexibility would have been desired. For example a modeller using Blocks, or user stereotyped classes, for stakeholder modelling would find that they cannot use these model elements directly on a use case diagram where only use case and actor model element types can be represented.

    The standard should also consider the practicalities of modelling tool design and usability considerations. Case 1 would imply just one diagram implementation and a large model element library (or tool bar) for the user to work with (in a model creation through the diagram paradigm). Whereas, case 2 requires distinct implementation of the diagram kinds along with their implied constraints of which model elements can be added to them, although it does mean that the model element library (or tool bar) is quite specific to each diagram kind.

    Without standardising what each diagram kind can contain, there will be no possibility of model interchange that includes the diagrams.

    On a final note, the explicit exclusion of the Profile diagram from UML seems strange because defining and working with Stereotypes is a common (albeit advanced) modelling concept in MBSE, but to do it requires specific modelling concepts (and their associated nodes and paths). Hence, the current suggestion that this is done with package diagram would seem to suggest that the aforementioned diagram case 1 was being implied.

    Suggested change (with a strict diagram syntax leaning):
    1. Make Annex A normative and remove the diagram mixing statement: "it does not preclude mixing different kinds of diagram types"
    2. Review each of the modelling clauses 8 through to 16 to check that they completely define the set of model elements and connectors that are useful to make available to modellers on the associated diagram kind. That is make explicit what is otherwise inferred by the lack of a constraint. E.g. that use case model elements can (or cannot) be connected to Blocks (or other forms of stereotyped classes) with a communication path connector.
    3. Add the UML Profile diagram to the list of SysML diagrams.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:56 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Causality of constraints in parametric diagrams

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Kenntnis ( Richard Welling)
  • Summary:

    Having occasion to review all outstanding constraint block issues, I have read more closely the overview and find that the last paragraph on page 97 of the SysML 1.4 specification has significant problems. It also is the only mention in the SysML spec of constraint causality. This proposal is an attempt to clarify that paragraph while addressing concerns about constraint causality, affecting SYSMLR-99, SYSMLR-47, and SYSMLR-38. This is the paragraph as written:

    SysML identifies and names constraint blocks, but does not specify a computer interpretable language for them. The interpretation of a given constraint block (e.g., a mathematical relation between its parameter values) must be provided. An expression may rely on other mathematical description languages both to capture the detailed specification of mathematical or logical relations, and to provide a computational engine for these relations. In addition, the block constraints are non-causal and do not specify the dependent or independent variables. The specific dependent and independent variables are often defined by the initial conditions, and left to the computational engine.

    • The first sentence is not describing constraint blocks but rather a language for constraint expressions.
    • The second sentence again says, “block” when it is clearly referring to expressions, but then, says an “interpretation…must be provided.” By whom? Presumably by the tool provider but that's not clear.
    • The third sentence seems to say “An expression may rely on other mathematical description languages…to provide a computational engine for these relations.” It is clearly not the language that provides the computational engine but the tool implementing the language.
    • The treatment of causality is puzzling. Why was non-causality specified when causality is always at least implicit? In the F = m*a example, F is implicitly the dependent variable while a = F/m would indicate a as dependent. If the intent was to make causality non-mandatory to simplify the modeler’s task, then one could say parameters are assumed to be non-causal unless specified explicitly as such.
    • Michael Chonoles proposal (SYSMLR-47) to interpret parameters bound to derived values as dependent (output) and those bound to read-only values as independent (input) is not only useful but it should be noted that MagicDraw notates derived properties in recursive parametric diagram patterns and these clearly represent dependent variables. This is standard UML notation.

    Replace the above paragraph with the following:

    Constraint expressions may rely on any suitable mathematical description language to capture the detailed specification of mathematical or logical relations between parameters. The syntax and interpretation of the language and its associated computational engine are a tool responsibility. By default, constraints are assumed to be non-causal and do not necessarily specify dependent or independent variables, in which case specific dependent and independent variables may be defined by initial conditions and determined by the computational engine. Alternatively, dependent and independent variables (constraint parameters) may be expressed by designating their bound values as, respectively, derived ("/" prefix) or {read-only}.

    Move this paragraph to be the fourth paragraph on page 97, after paragraph starting with "Parametric diagrams include..." and before the paragraph starting with "Time can be modeled..." This places it in a logical flow that follows discussions of constraint blocks, constraints, and bindings.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 00:40 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML XMI typos in UML StandardProfile XMI references

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

    http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/20150709/SysML.xmi, I think when SysML specializes UML's standard profile, uses "_base" instead of "-base" in the reference. Here are a couple examples, might be more:

    1) <redefinedProperty href="http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/20131001/StandardProfile.xmi#Refine_base_Abstraction"/>
    should be :
    <redefinedProperty href="http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/20131001/StandardProfile.xmi#Refine-base_Abstraction"/>

    2) <redefinedProperty href="http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/20131001/StandardProfile.xmi#Trace_base_Abstraction"/>
    should be:
    <redefinedProperty href="http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/20131001/StandardProfile.xmi#Trace-base_Abstraction"/>

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Sun, 21 Feb 2016 15:01 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    To be fixed

    To fix the XMI as requested

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

No support for dot notation in activity and sequence diagrams

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Robert Karban)
  • Summary:

    The SysML notation does not provide a way to display nested properties as life lines on sequence diagrams or swimlanes/partitions on activity diagrams.

    Supporting dot notation would enable the user of sequence diagrams to reference nested properties and facilitate the construction of swimlanes on activity diagrams where the user now has to construct nested swimlanes.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 20:42 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Add signal to constraint [1] for DistributedProperty

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Bombardier Transportation ( Karsten Koechlin)
  • Summary:

    At the moment the stereotype distrubtedProperty is only allowed to be applied to properties of classifier stereotyped by Block or ValueType.
    We would like to apply the distributedProperty stereotype also to properties of classifier stereotyped by Signal.
    Reason: The properties of a block are transmitted by signal properties, the properties of the signal should also reflect the distribution.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:43 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Copy, DeriveReqt don't have operations, but Refine, Satisfy, Trace, Verify do.

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: University of Arizona ( Rick Steiner)
  • Summary:

    An inconsistency has been noted among requirement dependencies. «copy» and «deriveReqt» are the only requirement dependencies that do NOT have an operation to 'get' the supplier end («refine», «satisfy», «verify») or the client end («trace») of the dependency. The reason for this inconsistency is not clear.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:30 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Clarification of typing a binding connector


Inconsistency in the DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath specification

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

    Some DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath constraint definitions assume that the relationship on which this stereotype is applied is binary but there is no formal constraint enforcing it.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:27 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Replace all occurrences of "has been" by "is"

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

    In several places of the SysML specification document the term "has been" is used. It should be replaced by "is".

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Tue, 6 Jun 2017 07:44 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Add Graphical notation for General Classifier

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Charles Galey)
  • Summary:

    The usage of Generalization in SysML is a key part of establishing Domain Specific Languages and contexts for models. In particular it has great ability to establish reusability within our models. However, the only mechanism via which we can visually denote the nature of an object is via non-normative extensions to M2 via stereotypes such as <<Car>> or other examples. This is undesirable, we should have the ability (on classes and parts typed by those classes) to optionally display the General (or any General class of a Block) classifier of a Block on BDD's, IBD's and Parametric diagrams. This will, greatly enhance the readability of our diagrams, remove the complexity of implementing M2 stereotypes simply designed for visualization, and expose via the diagram usage of reusable libraries to make the foundation of our models.

    Example Format might be (in ASCII art):

    ------------
    <<Block>>
    [Car]
    Porsche
    --------------

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Fri, 20 Oct 2017 05:22 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Diagram header is not intuitively interpreted

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE / SSI ( Troy Peterson)
  • Summary:

    The SysML diagram header is not easily interpreted. Suggest a new format that provides the same information and content but following the typical naming convention used in SysML - i.e. name:Type

    Suggestion/Example:

    From:
    req [Package] Auto_Specification [Automobile System Requirements]

    To:
    Automobile System Requirements:req | Auto_Specification:Package

    Optional format adds "[req]" as an option to turn on to in bold or white text on a black background filling the header box around the diagram kind "req" in this case. Image examples provided to Rick Steiner and Sandy Friedenthal in separate communications.

    [req] Automobile System Requirements:req | Auto_Specification:Package

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 13 Sep 2018 04:34 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Do not move deprecated elements

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Benoit Maggi)
  • Summary:

    Between SysML 1.2 and SysML 1.3, some stereotypes were deprecated
    This deprecation was done by moving Stereotypes from their original package to a new "DeprecatedElements" package.

    Changing the qualified names of these stereotypes may break some code in tooling. Ideally the deprecation should be indicated without changing the element.

    SysML 1.3 : http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/20120401/SysML.xmi
    SysML 1.2 :http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/20100301/SysML-profile.uml

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Mon, 11 Sep 2017 15:08 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    No change

    That's not an issue about the specification but about the way of working. Request registred and agreed

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Inappropriate character for multiplying symbol with combined units

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Schindler Aufzüge AG ( Markus WALKER)
  • Summary:

    Some of the combined units use a period character instead of a multiply symbol. An example is the unit ‹newton metre› where the symbol is ‹N.m›. In contrary, other units make use of the middle dot character, e.g., ‹kilogram metre squared per second›, using the symbol ‹kg · m 2/s›.

    The SI Guide prescribes to use a middle dot or a thin space or if not ambiguous no character to combine different units that are multiplied.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:04 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Hidden constraints in description of PropertySpecificType

  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Excluded UML metaclasses are not formally defined

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

    Table 4.1. excludes several UML metaclasses from SysML. However, figure 4.2 shows that the SysML profile imports the whole UML. Instead, the SysML profile should use the metamodelReference and metaclassReference properties to import only the included elements.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Fri, 9 Feb 2018 12:54 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

DistributedProperty shall have an operation that checks whether a value is conform to the constraints of the distribution

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

    While it is not possible to check if a value conforms to, for example, uniform or mean distribution, it is possible to check, if it conforms to constraints of the specified distribution. For example, the minimum and maximum values of a uniform distribution.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:14 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML 1.6 should be based on UML 2.5.1

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

    SysML should be based on the newest available UML specification. Current UML specification is version 2.5.1. SysML 1.5. is still based on UML 2.5.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:29 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix it

    Agreed, to take care about it for SysML 1.7

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

FullPort type

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

    Split from SYSML16-86:

    What is the type of FullPort? Spec says nothing

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 07:42 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Typos/editorials found in the SysML 1.6 specification document

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

    This issue is dedicated to collect all typos and editorials we find in the SysML1.6 specification document. See linked annotated PDF for the list.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>> Note to RTF Chairs: do not schedule this issue for voting before the last ballot of the RTF; until then we update the list in the issue description if we find new typos <<<
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:40 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Fixed typos/editorials in SysML 1.6

    This resolution fixes all typos summarized in the issue.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Precise Semantics for SysML

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

    Clarify the executable semantics of SysML Stereotypes

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:01 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add an Annex to the SysML specification

    The ViewEditor present an informative annex (Annex H) that we propose as a resolution to this issue.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

DistributedProperty should be abstract

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

    The DistributedProperty itself does not make sense. As specified in the specification specific distributions should be defined as subclasses of the DistributedProperty stereotype. Therefore, the stereotype should be abstract.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:05 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

DistributedProperty should be abstract

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

    The DistributedProperty stereotype should be abstract since it needs to be specialized in order to be usable.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Mon, 7 May 2018 12:45 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    duplicate

    Duplicate by SYSML17-170

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Unclear is StructuredActivityNode owned Actions should be Allocated

  • Key: SYSML17-99
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18678
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PTC ( Phillip Astle)
  • Summary:

    In the Constraints section the specification states the following:

    'An Action appearing in an “AllocateActivityPartition” will be the /client (from) end of an “allocate” dependency. The element that represents the “AllocateActivityPartition” will be the /supplier (to) end of the same “allocate” dependency.'

    For Actions owned by an Activity and shown inside the partition, this constraint is clear. However, if you have a StructuredActivityNode inside a partition and that StructuredActivityNode owns an Action, how many Allocate dependencies should there be? Should there be:

    a) One allocate from the StructuredActivityNode only?
    b) One allocate dependency from the StructuredActivityNode and one from the Action inside the StructuredActivityNode?

    To make things clearer, instead of the constraints section saying:

    'An Action appearing IN an "An Action appearing in an “AllocateActivityPartition”'

    It should say something along the lines of:

    'An Action referenced in the "node" role of an “AllocateActivityPartition”'

    This would remove the ambiguity of what "in" means and allow users to decide when Allocate dependencies are created.

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Pull semantics for flow properties

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18876
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    Currently in SysML, flow properties have “Push” semantics (cf. sub-clause 9.3.2.7): writing to a flow property with direction out, propagates value to matching flow property at opposite end of the connector. This implies that there is a behavior running on the part from the “out” side.

    “Pull” semantics could be useful as well: the value propagation is the result of a read made on the flow property with direction in to the matching property at the opposite end of the connector.
    This implies that there is a behavior running on the part from the “in” side.

    SysML should introduce a semantic variation point on this topic, and/or some specific notations/abstract syntax

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 19 Aug 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    To be addressed by SysML v2

    This kind of topic shall now be deferred to SysMLv2

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Clarification required for Copy relationship

  • Key: SYSML17-95
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18525
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PTC ( Phillip Astle)
  • Summary:

    There's a few issues with the Copy relationship as described in the specification.

    1. It's unclear what constraint 3 means. What are subrequirements (nested or derived)?

    2. How do you match subrequirements in the slave to subrequirements in the master?

    3. There's no constraint on the number of Copy relationships that a slave Requirement can be involved in (e.g. one Requirement could be the slave of two different master Requirements). What happens to the "text" tag if there are multiple masters?

    4. There's no constraint stopping a Requirement from being directly or indirectly a master of itself. Shouldn't there be?

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Mon, 4 Mar 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

primitive types in SysML Activities

  • Key: SYSML17-97
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18659
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    In SysML, value property types are restricted to be a ValueType.
    I see the problem with incompatible and inconsistent types in customer models, as Activities have no restrictions and still use UML primitive types as pin and parameter types.

    Did I miss something in the spec, or types used in Activity are not restricted to be ValueTypes?

    Also, did we fix VerdictKind to be a ValueType? I don't remember.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Need clarification about possible configurations of the new ports introduced in SysML 1.3 and of their semantics

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19328
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Nicolas Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Background:

    SysML 1.3 introduced significant changes to SysML ports
    MBSE methodologies based on SysML 1.2 need to be updated for SysML 1.3 and
    later

    A summary of syntactic and semantic variations for SysML 1.4 ports is an
    important component for tailoring an MBSE methodology as an extension of
    SysML 1.4
    Independent of a particular MBSE methodology, such a summary is an
    important guide for users and tool implementors.
    For users, such a summary would help understand the capabilities and
    limitations of a particular SysML tool implementation
    For tool implementers, such a summary would help understand what
    capabilities need to be implemented to support SysML

    Issue:

    The SysML 1.4 specification lacks a compact summary of the range of
    syntactic variations allowed for SysML 1.4 ports
    and the corresponding semantics for these syntactic variations

    The SysML RTF should provide a catalogue of the syntactic factors that
    induce the syntactic and semantic diversity of SysML ports

    As of SysML 1.4, known factors include, but are not necessarily limited to:

    1) SysML Port Kind

    ­

    {proxy, full, uncommitted}

    2) SysML Port Type

    ­

    {InterfaceBlock, Block, ConstraintBlock}

    3) UML Interaction modality

    ­(UML::Port::isService, UML::Port::isBehavior)

    4) SysML Port Features & nesting

    ­Behavioral features:

    {operation, reception}

    ­Structural features:

    {value, flow, reference, part, constraint, binding, participant, connector, distributed, endPathMultiplicity, boundReference, adjunct, classifierBehavior} {property, port}

    5) Nested SysML Ports (kind, type, modality, features)

    6) Optional feature direction

    {provided, required, provided+required}

    7) SysML Port Connectivity

    ­Internal vs. external connectors
    ­UML Connector kind (assembly, delegation)
    ­SysML Connector kind (binding, non-binding)
    ­SysML Connector type

    {none, UML::Association, SysML::Block + UML::AssociationClass}

    ­SysML Association Block-typed Connector features & nesting
    (same as SysML Port Features & nesting)

    8) SysML ItemFlow

    ­Distinguishing what may flow in general vs. what actually flows in a
    context

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 3 Apr 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Abstract syntax for the initial values

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19286
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    The abstract syntax supporting the specification of initial values for properties of SysML block has to be clarified and aligned with the intended semantics.

    In SysML 1.4, §8.3.1.2.8 says: “A compartment with a label of “initialValues” may be used to show values of properties belonging to a containing block.

    These values override any default values that may have been previously specified on these properties on their originally

    defining block”

    While §8.3.2.3 says: “An entire tree of context-specific values can be specified on a containing block to carry values of nested

    properties as shown on an internal block diagram”, then: “If a property belonging to a block has a specification of initial values for any of the properties belonging to its type, then

    the default value of that property must be a UML InstanceValue element. This element must reference a UML

    InstanceSpecification element created to hold the initial values of the individual properties within its usage context. The

    instance specification must be unnamed and owned by the same package that owns the outermost containing block for

    which the initial values are being specified”

    If the specification of an initial value is “context specific”:

    · It cannot be specified using the default value of a property

    · It should be possible to distinct initial value depending on the context, i.e. we need a resolution mechanism to know which initial value has to be used

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 21 Mar 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

Does the objectiveFunction stereotype generalizes the ConstraintBlock stereotype or UML::property?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19859
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Section E.4 (non-normative) defines the objectiveFunction stereotype to describe objective functions for use in trade studies. However, whereas Table E.5 defines the objectiveFunction stereotype to extend (or rather generalize) ConstraintBlock, this seems to be inconsistent with the parametric diagram on the same page where the objectiveFunction stereotype is (seems to be [*]) applied to the a constraintProperty instead.
    Given the fact that constraintProperty is only 'loosely' defined in the spec (i.e. it is not part of the xmi file), the only viable alternative seems to be that objectivefunction extends uml::Property and adds the necessary constraints in order to warrant the fact that the type of the uml::Property is (stereotyped by) a ConstraintBlock...

    Please clarify the definition of the objectiveFunction stereotype.

    [*] Since there is no formal notation defined for objectiveFunction, one can of course merely guess...

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    To fix the XMI generator, as appropriate

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

classifierBehaviorProperty and adjunctProperty notation

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19326
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    I cannot find new SysML 1.4 ClassifierBehaviorProperty and AdjunctProperty notation details, such as :

    1. what keyword should be used? <<classifierBehaviorProperty>> which is very long, or maybe shorter version <<classifierBehavior>> ? <<adjunctProperty>> ?

    2. In what block compartments should it appear? Under generic “properties” or maybe should have their own new compartments?

    3. Should we show “principal” value on adjunctProperty box? If so, showing only the name is not so useful as showing an element kind too, like <<callBehaviorAction>> or <<parameter>>, so user can understand what it represents.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 2 Apr 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

[SysML] Semantic variation points

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19489
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    Kind: Clarification

    Description:

    The current specification of SysML allows, in some places, variations on the semantics. For a part of them it is intentional because the standard does not want to enforce a specific one among others possible, for another part it is not and may result from ambiguities in the text which will have to be fixed.

    It would be useful to explicitly and exhaustively identify the list of intentional semantic variation points so that users can easily see the choices they have to make and state them clearly.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Depletive/non-depletive semantics of ReadStructuralFeatureActions on FlowProperties

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18877
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    For “regular” properties, UML semantics in UML is “non-depletive”: the ability to read their value does not depend on the number of time they have been read previously. A “depletive” semantics would implies that a value is no more available once it has been read

    SysML does not say anything about this for flow properties.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 19 Aug 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

URI for the SysML Profile given in section E.3 is wrong

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19321
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PTC ( Simon Moore)
  • Summary:

    At the end of section E.4 on page 245:
    "The namespace for the standard profile is: http://schema.omg.org/spec/SysML/20090817/SysML-profile.xmi."

    Should this be referred to as a URI, not the namespace? Perhaps should simply reference the cover page of the spec since the one given here is out of date.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 31 Mar 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Semantics clarification for removing a value from an out Flow Property

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18953
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    The specification should clarify the semantics for removing a value from an “out” Flow Property. Since “removing” something is considered to be a “write”, can we assume that it is propagated to a connected and matching “in” Flow Property, if any?

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML says nothing about how to deal with multiplicity for flow properties matching

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18783
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    SysML says nothing about how to deal with multiplicity for flow properties matching

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 20 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

ISO-80000 ValueType stereotype applications have wrong unit and quantityKind values

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

    The ISO-80000 library has numerous instances of the SysML::ValueType stereotype applied on data types. They are intended to specify the corresponding units and quantity kinds.

    According to SysML, both unit and quantityKind properties of the ValueType stereotype shall be InstanceSpecifications.

    However in http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/20150709/ISO-80000 all of them refer to the data type the stereotype is applied to rather than to the expected instance specifications. This could result from a bug in the ID generation algorithm used for SysML 1.4

    Example

    <SysML.Blocks:ValueType xmi:id="ISO-80000.package_packagedElement_ISO80000-9_Physical_Chemestry_and_Molecular_Physics.package_packagedElement_Quantities.package_packagedElement_amount_of_substance_concentration.dataType_packagedElement_amount_of_substance_concentration_u0028zettamole_per_cubic_metre_u0029.stereotypeApplication_SysML.package_packagedElement_Blocks.stereotype_packagedElement_ValueType">
        <base_DataType xmi:idref="ISO-80000.package_packagedElement_ISO80000-9_Physical_Chemestry_and_Molecular_Physics.package_packagedElement_Quantities.package_packagedElement_amount_of_substance_concentration.dataType_packagedElement_amount_of_substance_concentration_u0028zettamole_per_cubic_metre_u0029"/>
        <quantityKind xmi:idref="ISO-80000.package_packagedElement_ISO80000-9_Physical_Chemestry_and_Molecular_Physics.package_packagedElement_Quantities.package_packagedElement_amount_of_substance_concentration.dataType_packagedElement_amount_of_substance_concentration_u0028zettamole_per_cubic_metre_u0029"/>
        <unit xmi:idref="ISO-80000.package_packagedElement_ISO80000-9_Physical_Chemestry_and_Molecular_Physics.package_packagedElement_Quantities.package_packagedElement_amount_of_substance_concentration.dataType_packagedElement_amount_of_substance_concentration_u0028zettamole_per_cubic_metre_u0029"/></SysML.Blocks:ValueType>
    
  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 9 Aug 2016 13:05 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    To fix the xmi generator

    To fix the XMI generator, as appropriate

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Resolve inconsistency concerning restricion of ItemFlow type hierarchy

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Robert Karban)
  • Summary:

    Issue:
    The descriptions in the specification are inconsistent regarding the constraints of what can actually flow over a connector.
    The ItemFlow is used to constrain what actually flows w/r/t the flow properties which specify what can flow.
    In other sections the specifications suggest that the ItemFlow actually loosening the constraint by allowing more general types to be flowing.

    Description:
    These are the inconsistent parts in the specification:

    9.3.2.11 ItemFlow, p86 states:
    An ItemFlow describes the flow of items across a connector or an association. It may constrain the item exchange between blocks, block usages, or ports as specified by their flow properties.

    9.3.2.11 ItemFlow, p87 states:
    Each classifier of conveyed items on an item flow must be the same as, a specialization of, or a generalization of at least one flow property type on each end of the connected block usages.

    9.4.6 Item Flow Decomposition, p95
    Item flows can also be more general than the actual flow, as shown by the connector on the right. The water distiller produces distilled water, but the item flow is for any kind of fluid. The connection to the water heater is
    compatible because it accepts any kind of water, including distilled. The item flow does not require the heater to accept any kind of fluid, because the source of flow is still producing water, regardless of the generality of the item flow.

    Figure 9.15, p95 - Usage example of item flows in internal block diagrams
    Item Flow is Fluid.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 19:14 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Make ItemFlow a specialization of DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Robert Karban)
  • Summary:

    Issue:
    When ItemFlow connects (deeply) nested or inherited properties (e.g. ports or parts) we cannot uniquely identify the sources and targets in its context.

    Description:
    This is similar to other relationships which specialize DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath, e.g. "The Allocate stereotype
    specializes DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath to enable allocations to identify their sources and targets by a multi-level path of accessible properties from context blocks for the sources and targets."

    The DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath stereotype based on UML DirectedRelationship.
    Stereotype <<ItemFlow>> extends UML metaclass UML4SysML::InformationFlow which specializes DirectedRelationship.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:48 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Table 12.1 has incorrect "int" typed arguments (4x)

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    1) SysML convention is to use Capitalized types. These use lower case

    2) There is no "int" within SysML. The correct type is "Integer". While it is possible that an "Int" was defined in a model, in this case it is misleading readers to think that SysML uses Int as opposed to Integer.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 04:46 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Can a SysML Full Port be typed by a ValueType?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19412
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Nicolas Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Several users at JPL have been asking me about this particular combination.
    I can't find anything in the 1.4 spec precluding typing a full port by a value type.

    Have I missed anything?

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 12 May 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Definition of SysML stereotypes: association ends versus attributes

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

    Some properties of the SysML stereotypes are defined by associations and others by simple properties. It should be consistent and clearly defined how to define the stereotype properties.

    For example, propertyPath of ElementPropertyPath is defined by an association. boundEnd of BoundReference is defined by a simple property.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:19 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Parts, references, values compartments in wrong section

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

    Parts, references, and values compartments are described in Subclause 8.3.2.3 (Block), but should with the diagram extensions for BDDs (Subclause 8.3.1.1) with the others.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 23 Sep 2016 21:52 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

specializations of requirement should specialize AbstractRequirement

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Robert Karban)
  • Summary:

    They specialize requirement and therefore do not allow to have properties.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:51 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML XMI seems to define its own versions of UML Primitive Types rather than reusing those from UML

  • Key: SYSML17-72
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17210
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    SysML XMI seems to define its own versions of UML Primitive Types rather than reusing those from UML. Furthermore they are not even defined as instances of PrimitiveType despite their XMI id.

    For example we have:

    <packagedElement xmi:type="uml:DataType"
    xmi:id="_OMG_SysML_20110919_SysML_Libraries-PrimitiveValueTypes-String"
    name="String"/>

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Sat, 3 Mar 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Missing ownership constraints

  • Key: SYSML17-80
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18181
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PTC ( Phillip Astle)
  • Summary:

    The FlowProperty stereotype can current be applied to any Property in SysML. However, this leaves it open to applying the stereotype to Ports (inc. extensions of Ports) and Properties owned by non-Blocks. This doesn't seem to match the intent of the specification so constraints need to be added

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Content of Requirement::/tracedTo

  • Key: SYSML17-65
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16373
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Yann Tanguy)
  • Summary:

    In the specification the content of the derived property “Requirement::tracedTo” is defined as follows:

    • /tracedTo: NamedElement [*]

    Derived from all elements that are the supplier of a «trace» relationship for which this requirement is a client.

    As «copy» «deriveReqt» «verify» and «satisfy» inherit from “Trace”, does this means that /tracedTo also list all elements that are the supplier of a «copy» «verify» «satisfy» «deriveReqt» relationship for which this requirement is a client ?

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Missing type constraints for FullPort

  • Key: SYSML17-81
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18182
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PTC ( Phillip Astle)
  • Summary:

    Ports stereotyped as FullPort can currently be typed by anything a normal Port can be typed by. This isn't the intent of the specification, so constraints should be added.

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Description of Item Flows

  • Key: SYSML17-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15985
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Description of item flow and its attributes should explain that "assign" means "realization", change "usage" to "instance", and convey items rather than classifiers.

  • Reported: SysML 1.2 — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Blocks cannot own items flows

  • Key: SYSML17-54
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15982
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Nicolas Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Blocks cannot own items flows, because UML NameSpace abstractly owns NamedElement. Consider specializing on blocks to own item flows.

  • Reported: SysML 1.2 — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML stereotype notation creates ambiguity about to which element is the stereotype applied

  • Key: SYSML17-83
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18268
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Nicolas Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    The SysML notation allows a stereotype <<S>> applied to an element E1 to be shown as the notation for a different element E2 related to E1 in some way.

    Example: 11.3.1.2 CallBehaviorAction and Figure 11.2:

    Stereotypes applied to behaviors may appear on the notation for CallBehaviorAction when invoking those behaviors, as

    shown in Figure 11.2.

    What this means is that if a CallBehaviorAction shows a stereotype <<S>>, then it is unclear whether <<S>> is applied to the CallBehaviorAction itself or to the behavior that the CallBehaviorAction calls.

    This ambiguity is problematic for users reading SysML diagrams as indicated by SysML issue 17549:

    Table 11.1 on pg. 93 shows that the «controlOperator» stereotype can be applied

    to a call behavior action (when that call behavior action calls an activity that also

    has the «controlOperator» stereotype applied).

    More generally, the SysML spec needs to be reviewed where this stereotype notation can result in this kind of ambiguity.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

9.3.2.4 direction of ports and their notation (second issue)

  • Key: SYSML17-88
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18441
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Constraint [1] - properties that have no FlowProperty applied. does it include ports, association ends, value properties???

    More specifically – can port be stereotyped as directed feature/flow property, what types of properties can be stereotypes with these stereotypes?

    This issue is a portion of issue 17253 (9.3.2.4 DirectedFeature , constraint 4 - what is inherited method???) and is filed to allow it to be addressed separately from the rest of 17253.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Figures 15.5 and 15.6 diagram types

  • Key: SYSML17-89
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18459
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figures 15.5 (Example of flow allocation from ObjectFlow to Connector) and 15.6 (Example of flow allocation from ObjectFlow to ItemFlow) have ibds on the right, but those ibds have blocks instead of parts in them. Are they supposed to be a bdds? The blocks show parts, but the compartment doesn't say "structured" (same for Figure 15.8).

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Semantics of multiple Dependencies

  • Key: SYSML17-96
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18623
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    SysML defines or uses some relationship based on the UML Dependency metaclass. It is possible to specify multiple dependencies having with the same client or supplier. The user can rely on this capability for various purposes. The point is that there is no standard semantics for such constructs. This must be clarified.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 8 Apr 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Allocated notation on object nodes missing from diagram elements table

  • Key: SYSML17-91
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18461
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    In Allocations, the Diagram Element table is missing the notation for allocated object nodes shown in Figure 15.7 (Example of flow allocation from ObjectNode to FlowProperty).

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

9.3.2.4 direction of ports

  • Key: SYSML17-87
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18439
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    9.3.2.4 What does it mean "the meaning of direction"?? how direction is visible on port?
    This issue is a portion of issue 17253 (9.3.2.4 DirectedFeature , constraint 4 - what is inherited method???) and is filed to allow it to be addressed separately from the rest of 17253.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

VerdictKind

  • Key: SYSML17-84
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18312
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    I just realized that Requirements::VerdictKind enumeration in SysML profile is NOT a ValueType, so I can't use it in SysML model to type my values.

    Does everyone agree that it shall have ValueType stereotype applied?

    We should make sure all datatypes we provide are ValueTypes.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Libraries package should be named "SysML Model Libraries"

  • Key: SYSML17-92
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18462
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    The spec headings refer to model libraries using the adjective "model", so the package name should include it also. The name should start with "SysML" since it is separate from the SysML package.

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Item flows can have multiple types but item properties cannot

  • Key: SYSML17-58
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16042
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Item flows can have multiple types but item properties cannot

  • Reported: SysML 1.2 — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Update to Trace Relationship’

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19284
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    I potentially found a mistake in the latest SysML specification. It can be found on page 144. The “Trace Dependency” and the “TraceCallout” are introduced on this page. Usually these two visualizations should show the same aspect of a SysML model. Unfortunately the “Trace Dependency” is only introduced between two requirements whilst the “TraceCallout” is shown between a requirement and a more general NamedElement. I think the named element should be allowed in both cases in the client role of the trace dependency. ADDITIONAL TEXT

    The trace stereotype as defined in 16.3.2.7 does not constrain either end of the trace relationship than the having one client and one supplier.

    16.3.2.7 Trace
    Description
    The Trace stereotype specializes UML4SysML Trace and DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath to enable traces to identify their sources and targets by a multi-level path of accessible properties from context blocks for the sources and targets.
    Constraints
    [1] The Trace stereotype may only be applied to dependencies.
    [2] Dependencies with a Trace stereotype or one of its specializations applied must have exactly one client and one supplier.

    From the UML 2.5 Standard Profile, the UML4SysML::Trace extends Abstraction, which subclasses Dependency. Dependencys are directed relationships between Named Elements. Therefore, the SysML::Trace can have any Named Element as its ends.

    The diagram elements Table 16.2 on pg 144 should be clarified.

    Also, in section 16.3.2.7, the trace relationship has specific definitions for Requirements:

    Operations
    [1] The query getTracedFrom() gives all the requirements that are clients (from end of the concrete syntax) of a Trace
    relationship whose supplier is the element in parameter. This is a static query.
    Trace::getTracedFrom(ref : NamedElement) : Set(Requirement )

    {query, static}

    getTracedFrom=Requirement.AllInstances()>select(traceTo>includes(ref))

    The query getTracedFrom() could be more general and query all NamedElements and not only Requirements.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

The SysML classification of properties is incomplete

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18709
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Nicolas Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    SysML 1.3 section 8.3.2.2 Block says:

    SysML establishes four basic classifications of properties belonging to a SysML Block or ValueType.
    …
    A property typed by a SysML ValueType is classified as a value property, and always has composite aggregation.

    In SysML, we also have Signals.
    In UML, Signals can have properties.

    How does SysML then classify properties defined in a Signal?

    A very strict reading of the SysML spec would suggest that a Signal cannot have any kind of SysML property because a Signal is neither a SysML Block nor a SysML ValueType.
    However, this is clearly too restrictive in practice.

    I propose expanding SysML's classification of properties to include SysML Blocks, ValueTypes and Signals.
    This leads to another question:

    What are the legal types of a property belonging to a Signal?

    I propose restricting such properties to be typed by SysML ValueTypes only. This corresponds to the practical situation where a Signal carries a data payload – I.e., it is a message with some data content.
    Allowing a property belonging to a Signal to be typed by a SysML Block or Signal leads to semantic problems — what would it mean to send / receive such signals?

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 13 May 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

proxy and full port notation change request

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18993
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    After ˜1 year of using new proxy and full ports, our customers are not happy with using <<proxy>> and <<full>> keywords/labels for port kind identification.

    In real life, multiple labels on ports makes modeling a nightmare (see image below).

    In MagicDraw, we use different colors - full port has the same color as part, when proxy port is different, but it is not enough. Diagram may be printed in B&W too.
    What do you think about the idea to change proxy port graphical notation, by adding some special icons or using a dashed line for example?

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 9 Oct 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

Figure 15.8 diagram type

  • Key: SYSML17-85
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18409
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figure 15.8 (Example of Structural Allocation) is an ibd, but has blocks instead of parts in it. Is it supposed to be a bdd?

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:16 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

Allocation tabular notation normative?

  • Key: SYSML17-90
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18460
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    The clause Allocations, Usage Example, Tabular Representation is in the normative part of the spec, but refers to a tabular notation in Annex C, which isn't normative. Is the tabular notation normative?

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

callout notation issues

  • Key: SYSML17-37
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14575
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    I'm trying to prepare requirements for "callout" notation changes in MagicDraw SysML diagrams and trying to remove tool-specific notation.

    The SysML spec says that each allocatedTo or allocatedFrom property will be expressed as «elementType» ElementName.
    It looks simple at a first glance, but later SysML spec is a total mess:

    "For uniformity, the «elementType» displayed for the /allocatedTo or /allocatedFrom properties should be from the following list, as applicable. Other «elementType» designations may be used, if none of the below apply.

    «activity», «objectFlow», «controlFlow», «objectNode» «block», «itemFlow», «connector», «port», «flowPort», «atomicFlowPort», «interface», «value»

    Note that the supplier or client may be an Element (e.g., Activity, Block), Property (e.g., Action, Part), Connector, or BehavioralFeature (e.g., Operation). For this reason, it is important to use fully qualified names when displaying / allocatedFrom and /allocatedTo properties. An example of a fully qualified name is the form (PackageName::ElementName.PropertyName). "

    So, looking at the predefined list it is clear that:
    For the Activity or other "clean" UML element it is an metaclass name in lowercase.
    for let's say ItemFlow or FlowPort is is an stereotype name in lowercase.
    That's ok.

    But what is <<atomicFlowPort>> ? Port with <<flowPort>> stereotype applied which has isAtomic=true.
    What is <<value>> ? Property which has Type with <<ValueType>> stereotype applied.

    In the example below (Figure 15.4) it has allocation of actions to parts and it uses another one <<elementType>> which is not described - <<part>>.
    What is <<part>> ? The Property with AggregationKind = composite?

    Also, full qualified names and <<elementTypes>> are used incorrectly in this Figure or I don't understand how it should be used.
    For example:
    <<block>> Block4.Part5 - why it is <<block>>, but not <<part>> ???
    <<part>> Part2:Block1 - why part name is before block name? It should be displayed as (PackageName::ElementName.PropertyName) as described above.

    I believe, all these rules and exceptions should be described somewhere

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Flow properties and activity paramters

  • Key: SYSML17-42
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15176
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Françse ( Caron)
  • Summary:

    The SysML flow properties specify elementary flows (nature and direction) that can cross the boundary of a block through a port.

    According to the functional approaches of systems engineering, an entering flow when getting over the boundary of a block is handled as an input by at least one function of the block. An outgoing flow getting out the boundary of the same block is produced as an output by at least one function.

    Activity diagrams are used for carrying out functional graphs with SysML. Inputs and outputs of SysML activities are specified by parameters. Nevertheless SysML does not seem to provide any mean to relate activity input / output parameters to the flow properties. This entails that the unfortunate SysML developers, after having made careful and strenuous efforts for specifying the block interfaces with flow properties and ports, have no other solution than to redo exactly the same work for specifying the inputs / outputs of the functional architecture as activity parameters (or vice-versa). Moreover, there is no mean to ensure consistency in the SysML model between the flow properties and the activity parameters and neither between the ports and the activity pins.

    A solution would be to enable to use flow properties like parameters as activity inputs / outputs.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Proposal to have a stereotype for reference nested property

  • Key: SYSML17-36
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14055
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Eldad Palachi)
  • Summary:

    When one needs to reference a value of a specific property of part in a composition hierarchy in order to bind it to a constraint parameter, one uses the dot notation shown in section 8.3.1.2. (Example: a box labeled myCar.myEngine.currentTemp in a parametric diagram). When such a box is binded to a constraint parameter a nested connector end may be used to reference this property in the context of the composition hierarchy. However this poses a serious implementation issue for tools since until the box is binded it has no real model element behind it, also if one copies this box or the diagram to another hierarchy in the model then the tool has to complicated analysis. We propose to have a stereotype for reference nested property similar to nested connector end in which the path in the composition hirerchy is specified (i.e. propertyPath: Property [1..*] (ordered) - like in section 8.3.2.6). This will make it easier for tools to implement backed by the standard meta-model.

  • Reported: SysML 1.1 — Sun, 5 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML 1.2 Issues: Default stereotype on unlabeled box is not always optimal

  • Key: SYSML17-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15295
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    Page 36, 8.3.1.1 Default «block» stereotype on unlabeled box is not always optimal

    Original Text

    Default «block» stereotype on unlabeled box
    If no stereotype keyword appears within a definition box on a block definition diagram (including any stereotype property compartments), then the definition is assumed to be a SysML block, exactly as if the «block» keyword had appeared before the name in the top compartment of the definition.

    Comment

    I question whether this is always desirable, e.g.,

    1) if the diagram had the «functional hierarchy» diagram usage stereotype applied, wouldn’t the default be «activity»,

    2) if the containing block is an activity block, wouldn’t «activity» be the right default

    Type: Clarification/Fix

    Add sentences that say: If the bdd diagram has a «diagram usage» specified (such as «functional hierarchy»), a different default (such as «activity») can be used.

    If the bdd diagram is for an activity block, the default stereotype elements is «activity»

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML 1.2 Issue Viewpoint referencing other viewpoints properties

  • Key: SYSML17-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15293
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    Page 26

    Original Text

    7.3.2.5 Viewpoint

    Description

    A Viewpoint is a specification of the conventions and rules for constructing and using a view for the purpose of addressing a set of stakeholder concerns. The languages and methods for specifying a view may reference languages and methods in another viewpoint. They specify the elements expected to be represented in the view, and may be formally or informally defined. For example, the security viewpoint may require the security requirements, security functional and physical architecture, and security test cases

    Comment

    How is the highlighted sentence done? There are no examples. I see examples of Viewpoint with a dependency on another Viewpoint, but no references for the individual fields (e.g., language and methods). Are the fields populated in an inheritance manner. Can they be overridden? Does it only work if the fields are blank on the dependant Viewpoint?

    Type: Clarification

    Add example and clarify rules

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Ability for a binding connector to be typed

  • Key: SYSML17-40
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15079
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Sanford Friedenthal)
  • Summary:

    A binding connector used in parametrics should allow for decomposition via association blocks in a similar way that other connectors support decomposition. The specification currently includes a constraint on Block that precludes this as follows: “The number of ends of a connector owned by a block must be exactly two. (In SysML, a binding connector is not typed by an association, so this constraint is not implied entirely by the preceding constraint.)”

  • Reported: SysML 1.1 — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Binding to multiplicity in parametrics

  • Key: SYSML17-38
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14998
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Sanford Friedenthal)
  • Summary:

    In parametrics, one cannot currently bind a constraint parameter in a constraint expression to a multiplity. For example, one may need to include the number of tires in the constraint expression that constraints braking force. However, if the model includes a Vehicle, composed of Tire with multiplicity 4, one must be able to access the number of tires (i.e. the multiplity) in the expression.

  • Reported: SysML 1.1 — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Inheriting Allocations

  • Key: SYSML17-41
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15112
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Sanford Friedenthal)
  • Summary:

    The allocated stereotype includes properties «allocatedTo» and «allocatedFrom». Since these properties are stereotype properties, they are not inherited by the classifiers that they are applied to. A constraint could be applied to either the allocate or allocated stereotype which would impose that it is automatically applied to all subclasses of the classifier. The issue to be resolved is whether a subclass of a classifier with «allocatedTo» and/or «allocatedFrom» properties should inherit those properties

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Can Enumerations be used on parametric diagrams for typing constraint parameters

  • Key: SYSML17-64
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16304
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MAHLE International GmbH ( Andreas Korff)
  • Summary:

    when participating in the discussions on the draft ballot 3 on the SysML 1.3 spec, we observed that there is a need for clarification. The question was about whether Enumerations can be used on parametric diagrams for typing constraint parameters. The spec defines:

    From 8.3.2.10

    SysML defines ValueType as a stereotype of UML DataType to establish a more neutral term for system values that may never be given a concrete data representation. … A SysML ValueType may define its own properties and/or operations, just as for a UML DataType. See Section 8.3.2.2, “Block” for property classifications that SysML defines for either a Block or ValueType.

    ValueTypes can be used to type constraint parameters. Since ValueTypes extend UML DataTypes, and Enumerations are a subtype of DataType, Enumerations might be used. Since Blocks could be used as types of constraint parameters as well, the implication that any subtype of a UML datatype might lead to the implication that any subtype of UML classifier could be used here as well (e.g. activity or StateMachine), which is of course not meant.

    We need to constrain this definition better

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 1 Jun 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

Continuous flows in non-streaming situations with >1 multiplicities

  • Key: SYSML17-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15298
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    SysML 1.2 Issues: Continuous flows in non-streaming situations with >1 multiplicities

    11.3.2.1 Continuous

    It’s a bit unclear how continuous flows work in non streaming situation, especially with high multiplicities.

    If a continuous flow arrives at a pin with a multiplicity of 2, it would appear that the 1st and 2nd value arriving at the pin would be captured. If the flow is also continuously valued, the two values would be same. The difference between two adjacent samples goes to zero if the delta time between samples goes to zero (assuming differentiability).

    Type: Fix

    To make this capability useful, we’ll need to add a sampling rate to be able to use continuous with >1 multiplicity. If we don’t the specification should have a caveat for >1 multiplicity and differentiable input values.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML 1.2 Issues: Optional with streaming

  • Key: SYSML17-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15299
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    Sysm 1.2 Optional with «streaming»

    Page 92

    11.3.2.6 Optional

    Does optional on an input mean optional to start the activity or optional for the activity to finish? Consider an «optional» streaming input.

    Does optional on an output mean optional to appear at the end of the activity or optional for it ever to appear? Consider an «optional» streaming output..

    We need to have all the possibilities for streaming; it probably should have two multiplicities for each streaming parameter

    Starting Multiplicity: number of tokens that must appear for the activity to start

    Total Multiplicity: number of tokens that must appear over the lifetime of the activity

    Ending Multiplicity: number of tokens that must appear at the end of the activity

    Total Multiplicity: number of tokens that must appear over the lifetime of the activity

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Another issue with allocate

  • Key: SYSML17-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15884
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The allocate relationship is defined from client A::part1:P1 to supplier B::part2:P2. I think that’s ok according to the current SysML specification.

    However what I need is a allocate relationship defined from myA.part1:P1 to myB.part2:P2, i.e. the allocate relationship should consider the context

    and not be valid in another context.

    I’ve tried to assign the ownership of the allocate relationship to the TopLevel block which doesn’t work. MagicDraw doesn’t allow blocks to be owner of a allocate.

    I’m not sure whether it is a tool issue or if I’ve overseen a constraint. According to the UML metamodel it should be possible. Nevertheless I’m not sure if that’ll solve

    my problem.

    Any ideas?

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 9 Dec 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML 1.2 Issues: DistributedProperties on Activates

  • Key: SYSML17-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15296
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    Page 45 Distributed Properties on Activities

    Original Text

    8.3.2.4 DistributedProperty

    Constraints

    [1] The DistributedProperty stereotype may be applied only to properties of classifiers stereotyped by Block or ValueType.

    Comment

    As I read this, on a BDD, if we have activities, the properties of the activities cannot be distributed properties, because activities are not stereotyped as block

    Type: Fix

    Rewrite this constraint,

    [1] The DistributedProperty stereotype may be applied only to properties of classifiers stereotyped by Block, Activity, or ValueType.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML Issue on Multiplicity of Use Case Communication Associations

  • Key: SYSML17-51
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15875
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    SysMl does not give any example of using multiplicity on the relationships between actors and use cases. This is part of UML as shown in Figure 16.11.

    Apparently, the "official" interpretation of SysML is that if there is no example, it is not part of SysML. This incompatibility means that standardize training, books, etc, on Use Cases can not be applied to SysML. And the notation is of value.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 6 Dec 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML Issue based on UML 15369

  • Key: SYSML17-49
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15728
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    A new keyword was added for attributes in UML,

    {id}

    . This concatenation of all such attributes within a class (block) for an instance must be unique.

    While this will mostly be used by database developers, it’s also a domain model analysis property, e.g, Social Security Number for a US citizen, Mac Address, etc. As such, it may be useful to some SysML modelers.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML Issue representation of properties as associations

  • Key: SYSML17-50
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15730
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    In UML, there appears to be consistent representing of attributes as regular associations from the owning class. SysML, in similar circumstances, represents value properties as composite associations. We should try to understand what UML is saying (and perhaps push back on them) and consider the value of consistency.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Figure B.35 object nodes


Callout notation for port-specific types and initial values

  • Key: SYSML17-75
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17406
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Axel Scheithauer)
  • Summary:

    The specification allows property-specific types and property-specific initial values. Ports are just a special kind of property. Thus it would be possible to model port-specific types and values. The only problem is, that it is not possible to show the specifics of these types or the initial values within an internal block diagram, as would be the case for a property.

    Suggested addition to the spec

    • property-specific types and initial values also apply to ports [would not be forbidden now, but just to clarify this point]
    • A callout notation can be used in an ibd for ports with a port-specific type or initial value. It shows the same information as the compartments for properties.
    • Table 8.3: Example for call-out notation

    Maybe this notation could also be used on block definition diagrams, and in this case for properties as well. Then there should be a sentence in chapter 8.1.1.1 and an example in Table 8.2.

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Tue, 5 Jun 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Question about the Activity decomposition in Block Definition Diagrams

  • Key: SYSML17-69
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16945
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    I like the feature of SysML to decompose activities in a block definition diagram based on the callbehavior semantics (Fig. 11.1. SysML spec.).

    For example I use that extensively in the FAS methodology (Functional Architectures for Systems).

    I have a question about the composite relationship between activities. The SysML specification seems to be unclear about that.

    When modeling an activity with a CallbehaviorAction of another activity, does that automatically creates the association between the

    activities in the model? I think it must do that. Unfortunately tools seems to have a different behavior.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Sun, 8 Jan 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Interface blocks and protocols

  • Key: SYSML17-79
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18169
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    The practical usage of port implies the ability to specify a protocol, especially when operations or receptions are provided but not only (this can be true with flow properties too).

    The UML::Interface metaclass (at L3) has a specific property to define a protocol. Note that this protocol is not an owned behavior but only a specification of conformance characteristics.

    I believe we should add something similar to our InterfaceBlock stereotype, even if we do not include UML protocol state machines.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:16 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Timing diagrams

  • Key: SYSML17-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10642
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Timing diagrams are missing in SysML. They are an important diagram for several engineering disciplines. For example I know a project from the automotive/robotic domain that won't use SysML, because of the missing timing diagrams. Timing diagrams will improve the acceptance of SysML in engineering disciplines.

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Mon, 5 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Allocations should not generate dependencies

  • Key: SYSML17-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13840
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    Allocations should not generate dependencies The Allocate stereotype extends the Abstraction UML meta-class, which is a Dependency. It is in contradiction with the following description (cf. p133: "This concept requires independent models if “function” (behavior) and “form” (structure)") If we refere to EIA-632 the logical solution that will be allocated to the physical solution only depends from upstream requirements. In some cases, one may have some (upstream) requirements to use a given implementation platform, but this cannot be considered generic and anyway the dependendcy is still on the requirement not directly on the platform. A logical solution makes abstraction of the implementation to focus on issues strictly related to the missions of the system. Then, by definition a logical solution is semantically dependent from the need and not from the implementation. In most times, several logical solutions are possible. Their are more or less effective against each of their requirements, that's why the design work includes tradeoff activities. Saying that a given logical solution is not convenient to be implemented on a given platform doesn't mean that it's not a logical solution to the need. More, the current stereotype implementation biases the impact analysis. The objective of this analysis is to parse the model and to report what model elements should be reviewed (i.e. are potentially impacted) in case of modification of a given model element to preserve the model integrity and consistency. If the platform is modified, what has first to be checked is whether or not the modified elements of the platform can still play the role they have been assigned by the allocation (with the required QoS, etc...). If the answer is "yes", then nothing to do. If the answer is "no", then they are several potential choices: a) if possible modify the allocations only, b) select another logical solution (i.e. modify it) and define the new allocations, b) select another platform and define the new allocations. This is matter of tradeoff. The only point that has always to be checked is the allocations. Then the only "thing" that actually depends on the "from" and "to" sides of an allocation is the allocation itself.

  • Reported: SysML 1.1 — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Binding Relationships require unit conversions

  • Key: SYSML17-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13261
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    Binding relationships are used between model element properties and parameter in the constraint blocks, similarly they are used between constraint blocks.

    These constraint blocks are intended to be reusable.

    However connecting constraint blocks from different sources does not usually work unless the units are the same. Model element values may also not be using tehehe same units.

    A reasonable solution is to indicate the scaling factor on the binding relationship. This could be done in several ways. One way would be to indicate a simple assignment equations between the two parameter names.

    Currently

    x----------------------------------Y

    Proposed

    Y=100*x

    x-----------------------------------------Y

    Instead of using a constant 100, we could used a named constant such as cmPm

    If both ends of the binding relationship were identically named, we need to add an arrow to indicate the souce and target sidel

    à

    X=cmPM*X

    X-----------------------------------------X

    This would indicate that the left side X must be multipled by the cmPm to give the left side x

    This approach allows us to handle more complex conversions by including the ability to add/sub constants

    C=5/9*(F-32)

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Table 16.2 (top of pg. 146): Trace Dependency concrete syntax diagram incorrect

  • Key: SYSML17-35
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13942
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Jeff Estefan)
  • Summary:

    Table 16.2 (top of pg. 146): Trace Dependency concrete syntax diagram incorrect. Replace <<requirement>> Client with Named Element (no stereotype). Figure 16.1 (top of pg. 148): Recommend adding Refine stereotype (as specialization of Trace stereotype); otherwise note that it comes directly from UML metaclass rather than as a UML extension. Recommend reordering specializations of trace in alphabetical order on UML class diagram (e.g., Copy, DeriveReq, [Refine], Satisfy, Verify). Section 16.3.2: Should reintroduce Refine relationship description and contraints, even though a UML metaclass and not an extension. It is an important relationship with respect to requirements. Perhaps introduce prior to Sect 16.3. Section 16.3.2.3 (middle of pg. 150): Change cardinality of /derived: Requirement attribute from [0..1] to [*]. Also, add right bracket to cardinality of /master: Requirement attribute. Currently shows as [0..1 with not closing right bracket.

  • Reported: SysML 1.1 — Fri, 29 May 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

ItemFlows support on Activity & Interaction Diagrams


Diagram interchange

  • Key: SYSML17-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11653
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Sanford Friedenthal)
  • Summary:

    SysML needs the capability to interchange diagrams in addition to model data. The concrete syntax complliance should include a requirement to comply with diagram interchange in a similar way that the infrastructure specifciation does. The following is included in section 2.3 of the Infrastructure Spec under Concrete Syntax Compliance: - the ability to output diagrams and to read in diagrams based on the XMI schema defined by the Diagram Interchange specification for notation at that level. This option requires abstract syntax and concrete syntax compliance. The proposal is to add the same requirement as above to section 5.3 as a second bullet under the concrete syntax compliance.

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

AllocateActivityPartition and UML 2 semantics

  • Key: SYSML17-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13342
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    In Allocations, AllocateActivityPartition, Constraints, the second paragraph says the AllocateActivityPartition stereotype does nopt preserve the semantics of of UML 2 ActivityPartition, and that partitions with AllocateActivityPartition do not have responsibility for invoking the actions in them. I think there is no conflict with UML 2 semantics, because UML 2 ActivityPartition only requires performing the actions to be the responsibility of the element represented by the partiion, not the invoking of the action. This seems compatible with allocation.

  • Reported: SysML 1.1 — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Inferred Allocation on Allocate Activity Partitions

  • Key: SYSML17-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12123
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Rick Steiner)
  • Summary:

    When an allocation relationship is depicted on an activity diagram using Allocate Activity Partitions, it is unclear if the allocation relationship is from the Action Node to the Part represented by the partition (direct allocation), or from the Activity typing the Action Node to the Block typing the Part (Inferred allocation). Since in practice it has become necessary to represent both conditions, this portion of the SysML specification should be modified to incorporate some graphical indication to distinguish them.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 2 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

the use of <> is still unclear and inconsistent

  • Key: SYSML17-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10500
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    The figure and added text describing the use of <<extend>> is still unclear and inconsistent. As agreed, converting Start the vehicle to an <<include>> and Park to <<extend>> will correct the confusion and make the added text unnecessary.

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Mon, 4 Dec 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML: Operations on Activities need to be callable (e.g., start, restart, cancel)

  • Key: SYSML17-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13154
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    SysM:L: Operations on Activities need to be callable (e.g., start, restart, cancel)

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML: Activity Properties should be accessible in Activity diagrams for decision making

  • Key: SYSML17-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13153
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    SysML: Activity Properties should be accessible in Activity diagrams for decision making

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Inconsistency between xmi and pdf for Trace and Refine specializations

  • Status: closed   Implementation work Blocked
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Benoit Maggi)
  • Summary:

    While generating code for a custom sub-profile of SysML 1.4, we got some issues (as far as I can tell the same apply for SysML 1.5)
    You can see the discussion here https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=530565

    After some internal discussions (thanks Patrick and Jérémie for your time), here are our conclusions:

    In the normative SysML 1.4 XMI Refines and Trace stereotype are implemented as follows :

    1. Refine
    ­ Specializes SysML::Blocks::DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath.
    ­ Extends UML::Abstraction.

    • This extension is a specialization of Abstraction_Refine extension.
    • This extension is a specialization of DirectedRelationship_DirectedRelationShipPropertyPath extension.
      2. Trace
      ­ Specializes SysML::Blocks::DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath.
      ­ Extends UML::Abstraction.
    • This extension is a specialization of Abstraction_Trace extension.
    • This extension is a specialization of DirectedRelationship_DirectedRelationShipPropertyPath extension.

    [Issue 1] The profile design is not aligned with the content of the normative PDF for [SysML 1.4]. Indeed, in this latter:
    1. Refine specializes StandardProfile::Refine and SysML::Blocks::DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath.
    2. Trace specializes StandardProfile::Trace and SysML::Blocks::DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath.
    However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no indications regarding the specializations of the existing extensions relationships.

    [Issue 2] The profile design is not conformant to [UML 2.5]. Indeed, both Refine and Trace have a base_Abstraction property redefining :
    1. SysML::Blocks::DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath::base_DirectedRelationship and StandardProfile::Refine::base_Abstraction (Refine case).
    2. SysML::Blocks::DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath::base_DirectedRelationship and StandardProfile::Trace::base_Abstraction (Trace case).
    However, according to [UML 2.5] a property cannot be redefined if it is not inherited (see constraint “redefined_property_inherited” in section 9.9.17.7 in [UML 2.5]). Hence, it is not allowed to specify that StandardProfile::Refine::base_Abstraction or StandardProfile::Trace::base_Abstraction are redefined since Refine and Trace do not specialize StandardProfile::Refine and StandardProfile::Trace.

    [Remark] The usage of the “extension specialization” pattern used to define both Refine and Trace within SysML shall be rationalized. To us, the two main points for using that pattern were:
    1. To avoid the usage of multiple inheritance in Refine /Trace definitions.
    2. Enable the owned extension ends (i.e., the one owned by the newly defined extensions relationships) to redefine the owned extension ends for StandardProfile::Trace, StandardProfile::Refine and SysML::Blocks::DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:04 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add the missing generalizations

    The reporter is right; those generalization are missing in the model defining the profile and have to be added.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

PDF Specification of SystemOfQuantities not consistent with XMI

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

    The operations and constraints in section E.5.2.15 SystemOfQuantities are not consistent with the definition in the XMI.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sat, 9 Apr 2022 18:03 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Sync section 5.2.15 with XMI

    The XMI is based on the QUDV model, which is the single source of truth. Therefore, the documentation of the operations and constraints in section 5.2.15 must be updated to be in sync with the XMI. This will be achieved thanks to the document generation.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Figure E-6 is identical with E-5

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

    Figure E-5 and E-6 are identical. Replace figure E-6 with the figure E-6 from the SysML 1.5 specification.

    Figure E-6 contains some issues:

    • Should be a bdd instead of pkg
    • Unit::dependsOnUnits is a reference property and should be displayed in a separate compartment with headline "references"
    • Multiplicity at ends of associations between Unit and SystemOfUnits are 0..1 in figure E-5, but 0..* in figure E-6 in SysML 1.5 and also 0..* in figure E-5 in SysML 1.5
    • Multiplicity quantityKind (association between Unit and QuantityKind) is 1..* in figure E-5, and 0..* in figure E-6 in SysML 1.5 and also 0..* in figure E-5 in SysML 1.5
  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sat, 17 Apr 2021 17:31 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Update figures E-5 and E-6

    Figure E-5 and E-6 are identical. Replace figure E-6 with the figure E-6 from the SysML 1.5 specification.

    Figure E-6 contains some issues:

    • Should be a bdd instead of pkg
    • Unit::dependsOnUnits is a reference property and should be displayed in a separate compartment with headline "references"
    • Multiplicity at ends of associations between Unit and SystemOfUnits are 0..1 in figure E-5, but 0..* in figure E-6 in SysML 1.5 and also 0..* in figure E-5 in SysML 1.5
    • Multiplicity quantityKind (association between Unit and QuantityKind) is 1..* in figure E-5, and 0..* in figure E-6 in SysML 1.5 and also 0..* in figure E-5 in SysML 1.5
  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

Sample problem diagrams are inconsistent, need to refactor from integrated model

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: University of Arizona ( Rick Steiner)
  • Summary:

    The diagrams in Annex D are in many ways inconsistent with each other. Fixing existing issues with each individual diagram will tend to make this problem worse, instead of better. For consistency's sake, the set of diagrams in Annex D needs to be generated from an integrated model as existing issues are addressed.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Fri, 8 Mar 2019 19:15 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace 1.6 Annex D with 1.7 Annex D generated from integrated model.

    Two documents attached:
    1. Annex D generated from the 1.7 integrated model in TWC (SysML 1.x Specification [trunk] #1206.
    2. SYSML17-185 Resolution Document, generated from the same model (#1210) with tables showing each issue resolved & the effected diagram(s), then each of the 41 figures in both final form and annotated to show which changes have been made. Note that figures without annotated diagrams have not substantially changed from 1.6.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Diagram show inconsistent data

  • Key: SYSML17-94
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18503
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PTC ( Phillip Astle)
  • Summary:

    Diagrams C.35, C.36 and C.37 show inconsistent allocation between the displayed items, yet the text would seem to imply that they're supposed to show the same relationships.

    In C.35, the allocation is from an ObjectNode symbol called "DriveCurrent" (which I believe equates to an ObjectFlow - name unknown) to an ItemFlow called "i1".

    In C.36, the allocation is from an ObjectNode called "DriveCurrent" to a Connector (name unknown).

    In C.37, the allocation is from an ObjectFlow called "o6" to a Connector called "epc-emg.1".

    There are a number of issues:

    1. ObjectNode is an abstract specialization of ActivityNode and as such you can't have any instances of them in a model. Any reference to an ObjectNode should be removed.

    2. The allocation should consistently be from ObjectFlow "o6" to either ItemFlow "i1" or Connector "epc-emg.1".

    3. In order to make it clear that the same items are being related, the names of the ObjectFlow and the Connector/ItemFlow should be shown on all diagrams. Currently the ObjectFlow and the Connector names are not shown.

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Update diagrams based on integrated example model

    Merged with SYSML17-185 which collects all issues regarding annex D.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Missing relationship between SystemOfUnits and Units

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Axel Scheithauer)
  • Summary:

    The units shown in figure E.15 to E.18 don't have a link to the SystemOfUnits shown in the same diagram. There has been a link in SysML 1.5, albeit erronously, because there is no direct link. An indirect link exists along the included SystemOfUnits. I think it makes sense to show these indirect links. Otherwise the unconnected SystemOfUnits shown makes no sense in the diagram.
    Suggestion: Add the intermediary SystemOfUnits.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 27 Sep 2021 11:45 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change the diagrams

    Replace diagrams

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

SysML: Interaction diagram and Data-based comm of SysML

  • Key: SYSML17-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11627
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:
    Original Description:

    Here is a question on the usage of sequence diagrams with SysML, more specially with blocks that communicate via flow ports. Within UML, Message is associated with signature of either a Signal or an Operation (see constraint 2 on Message meta class, p. 492 of the UML2 superstructure spec.).

    In SysML, blocks introduce an alternative for communication between blocks w.r.t. to usual UML2 composite structures: flow ports are basically dedicated to support data-based communication between blocks in contrast of UML2 that does not support such kind of communication between composite structures.
    In this case, a Message within an interaction should be able to refer either a DataType, a Block, a ValueType if the communication happen between two atomic flow ports, or to a FlowSpecification if the communication happen between two non-atomic port.

    I did not see anything related this issue within the SysML spec. Do I miss something or is it something missing in the SysML doc?

    Description revised, in a hope to capture the essence of the question being asked, using the language of SysML V1.6:

    Summary of Problem Statement:
    Here is a question on the usage of sequence diagrams with SysML, more specially with blocks that communicate via Ports.

    SysML introduces methods of data exchanges with Blocks thru the use of Flow Properties and Interface blocks, which can then be used, to illustrate data exchanges on Sequence Diagrams. On the other hand, UML 2.0 uses Classes, & InformationFlows to convey data exchanges.

    Question:
    How can data exchange between Part Properties and/or Actors using ValueType, Blocks & Signals be illustrated on a Sequence Diagram, while using Full Ports & Proxy Ports?

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

BindingConnector ends multiplicity

  • Key: SYSML17-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11333
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    The semantics of the Binding Connector is described as follow :

    “8.3.2.10 Binding Connector

    Description

    A Binding Connector is a connector which specifies that the properties at both ends of the connector have equal values. If the properties at the ends of a binding connector are typed by a DataType or ValueType, the connector specifies that the instances of the properties must hold equal values, recursively through any nested properties within the connected properties. If the properties at the ends of a binding connector are typed by a Block, the connector specifies that the instances of the properties must refer to the same block instance.”

    So, I understand that definition if the multiplicity of the properties linked by the binding connector is 0..1 or 1. But what happen is the upper bound of the multiplicity is greater than 1? If for example, it is 0..* ? And moreover, what happen when the multiplicity of both property is different, as for example on one end 0..1 and on the other end 1 ? In this case, as according to the previous definition, the value of both properties has to be equal, what happen to the value of the proiperty which multiplicity is 1 when the other property is not yet defined?

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Issue: Nested connector ends

  • Key: SYSML17-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11276
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Nested connector ends:

    "Connectors may be drawn that cross the boundaries of nested properties to connect to properties within them."

    That's an important feature of SysML.

    "The ability to connect to nested properties within a containing block requires that multiple levels of decomposition be
    shown on the same diagram."

    I think that's a problem in practice. Often I don't want to see the nested properties in the diagram.
    I propose to add a notational feature to show that a connector end is connected with a nested property without
    showing that property.

    For example we could draw the connector to the border of the surrounding property and attach the stereotype <<nested>>
    as a short form of <<nestedConnectorEnd>> and optionally the propertyPath.

    What do you think?

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Issue deferred

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

The description of the semantics for the Overwrite stereotype is not consistent

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

    The illustration given as part of the description of the Overwrite stereotype does not match the semantics defined by fUML.

    Indeed, and except in very specific situation input pins never "store" tokens. So, applying the Overwrite stereotype to an input pin does not have practical effect in most cases.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:55 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix the illustration given in the SysML specification

    In the sentence referred by the issue, just replace "input pin" by "output pin"

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

TestCase should use PackageMerge

  • Key: SYSML17-63
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16286
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KnowGravity Inc. ( Markus Schacher)
  • Summary:

    The stereotype «TestCase» is primarily specified in the UML Testing Profile (UTP) and should not be defined by SysML redundantly (or even inconsistently). Rather it should be separated in a dedicated package in SysML and a PackageMerge be specified. This would properly add the properties of a «TestCase» specified in SysML to the "base" «TestCase» specified in UTP.

  • Reported: SysML 1.2 — Fri, 27 May 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merge with SYSML17-185

    This issue is tracked and resolved in the integrated Annex D model that is required by SYSML17-185.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

standard way to describe a flow of data in sequence diagrams

  • Key: SYSML17-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11117
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Eldad Palachi)
  • Summary:

    I was unable to find a standard way to describe a flow of data in sequence diagrams. Currently sequence diagrams only deal with flow of control by exchanging messages. We believe that it would be very useful to also have a way for describing data flow as part of the interaction scenario

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Wed, 4 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Already possible

    It is allowed by the standard, already.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Typo: Constraint name 8 of Adjunct Property

  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Typo: Constraint name 8 of Adjunct Property

    Fix the typo as proposed.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Combined call-out notation not allowed

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

    Figure D.25 depicts a allocate call-out notation that represents more than one call-out relationship. I don't think that it is allowed.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:36 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merge with SYSML17-185

    This issue is tracked and resolved in the integrated Annex D model that is required by SYSML17-185.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

The NoBuffer specification makes a wrong statement about the UML semantics

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

    The sentence that says: “When the stereotype is not applied, the semantics are as in UML, specifically, tokens arriving at an object node that are refused by outgoing edges, or action for input pins, are held until they can leave the object node” is false. This is not the semantics UML specifies. Buffering is provided only for token satisfying the guard but that are not numerous enough to satisfy the “weight” condition.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 6 Oct 2021 15:25 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    The sentence is correct, but restates UML semantics.

    The sentence is correct. Buffering of tokens in Pins is possible in UML. The weight is not the only reason, why the outgoing ObjectFlow might refuse to accept tokens. If the guard is not satisfied, tokens are not discarded but buffered.

    However, the second part of the sentence restates UML semantics. In terms of a clean separation of the specifications UML and SysML, the second part is removed and the sentence is changed to "When the stereotype is not applied, the semantics are as in UML."

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Fix figure e-5

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

    Figure E-5 QUDV Concepts Diagram has several minor issues:

    • Should be a bdd instead of pkg diagram
    • Diagram name should not include the diagram number E-5
    • The notation of the owner in the block rectangle is not SysML conform
    • Diagram is not a vector graphic
    • Block QuantityKind has additional unknown stereotype <<Migration>>
  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sat, 17 Apr 2021 08:31 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fixed figure E-5

    Editorial fixes: change diagram type from package to bdd; remove diagram number from diagram name; assure that final graphic in the PDF is a vector graphic

    The stereotype "Migration" seems to be a forgotten part of the work on the QUDV elements. It can be removed.

    The information about the owner of the blocks is less important and would cost a lot of diagram space, if the package frames were included or the blocks had full qualified names. Therefore, that information is removed from the diagram.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

BDD representation of activity hierarchy

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

    I would question whether it was correct to change section 11.3.1.1 "Activity" by replacing the BDD representation of activity hierarchy (as per v1.3) with adjunct action properties (introduced in v1.4). Whilst the latter is possible with the AdjunctProperty facility, the prior method, inherited from UML, is still valid. That is, unless the UML activity hierarchy is expressly deprecated from SysML. Even then, it will leave end users with the question of what the additional benefit is of the adjunct property as applied to call behaviour actions.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5b1 — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:45 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change: Restrict bdd presentation of activities

    There is no need that SysML restricts the modeling of activities in block definition diagrams like it is allowed by UML rules. The paragraph above Figure 11-1 in 11.3.1.1.1 says "Properties with AdjunctProperty applied ... can be used", it doesn't say they must be used.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

QUDV: PrefixedUnit has no quantity kind

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

    In figure E-9, the prefixed unit kilogram has two quantity kinds mass.

    However, PrefixedUnit redefines the quantityKind property and sets the multiplicity to 0. It should not have a quantityKind.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:11 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove quantityKind links for kilogram in Figure E-9

    A PrefixedUnit has not quantity kinds. The slots respectively links from kilogram to mass should be removed.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

NoBuffer has no effect if it is applied on an input pin

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

    According to the UML semantics for Activities execution, token will be placed on input pins of an action only when this action accept them. So there will be no case where token in a input pin will be "refused".

    As a consequence, applying the "NoBuffer" stereotype on an input pin will not have any effect, conversely to what the description sub clause of that stereotype suggests (in section 11.3.2.4).

    Proposal: clarify that "NoBuffer" should not be applied on input pins.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 3 Nov 2021 16:48 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    No change

    No Buffer may actually has an effect on an input pin if that one is part of a structured node.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Annex B / Figure B27

  • Key: SYSML17-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12147
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic ( Darren Kelly)
  • Summary:

    Figure B.27: <<view>> Package "steals ownership" of MOEs, Actor, UseCase and Requirement Severity Critical since there is currently no sensible way to implement <<view>> in tools ! In Figure B.27 - Establishing a Performance View of the User Model It is not at all clear how the MOEs, Actor, UseCase and requirement should be shown as directly within the view without the view package "stealing ownership". Appears to break constraint: '7.3.2.4 View [1] A view can only own element import, package import, comment, and constraint elements.' See also example images in Magicdraw UML SysML Plugin at: http://school.nomagicasia.com/node/127 http://school.nomagicasia.com/files/images/Figure%20B.27%20-%20Establishing%20a%20Performance%20View%20of%20the%20User%20Model.png Note that this relates to:: Issue 11500: <<view>> as Package extension is very bad idea (sysml-rtf), No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus@magicdraw.com nerijus@nomagic.com) '<<view>> as Package extension is very bad idea. Package is used for ownership, so it is not possible to show the same elements in different packages (as different point of view)'

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Wed, 2 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merge with SYSML17-185

    This issue is tracked and resolved in the integrated Annex D model that is required by SYSML17-185.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Annex B / Figure B.38

  • Key: SYSML17-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12154
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic ( Darren Kelly)
  • Summary:

    Figure B.38: property names of p:[PowerSubsystem] inconsistent w.r.t. other figures
    Figure B.38 gives p:[PowerSubsystem] with parts: em: [ElectricMotor] t: [Transmission] ice: [InternalCombustionEngine]
    Figure 9.3 shows PowerSubsystem with parts: trsm: Transmission ice: InternalCombustionEngine (ecu:PowerControlUnit) (epc: ElectricalPowerController)
    Figure 9.6 IBD shows PowerSubsystem with parts: trsm: Transmission ice: InternalCombustionEngine (ecu:PowerControlUnit) (epc: ElectricalPowerController)
    Figure 15.10 IBD shows PowerSubsystem with parts: trsm: Transmission ice: InternalCombustionEngine emg:ElectricalMotorGenerator (ecu:PowerControlUnit) (epc: ElectricalPowerController) (can:CAN_Bus)
    Figure B.18 BDD shows PowerSubsystem with parts: trsm: Transmission ice: InternalCombustionEngine em: ElectricalMotorGenerator pcu:PowerControlUnit (epc: ElectricalPowerController) ..

    For consistency Figure B.38 should show p:[PowerSubsystem] with parts: emg: [ElectricMotor] (not 'em') trsm: [Transmission] (not 't') ice: [InternalCombustionEngine] Also, Figure B.18 should show PowerSubsystem with part: ecu:PowerControlUnit Visit also analysis at: http://school.nomagicasia.com/node/149

    Update 03/25/2019: Added newlines for readability

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Wed, 2 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merge with SYSML17-185

    This issue is tracked and resolved in the integrated Annex D model that is required by SYSML17-185.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Don't use the optional notation for Pins with Allocation

  • Key: SYSML17-93
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18502
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PTC ( Phillip Astle)
  • Summary:

    Figure C.35 uses the optional notation for Pins (i.e. >[]> instead of []->[]). The allocation callout note is anchored to the object node symbol which makes it ambiguous as to which dictionary item(s) are being allocated. It could be one of the following:

    + the origin and destination pins
    + the object flow
    + the common type of the pins

    Since it's unclear what is being allocated, it would make more sense to show the Pins on the diagram and link the callout note to the relevant item(s) (I believe it's supposed to go to the ObjectFlow).

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML17-185

    Merged with SYSML17-185 which collects all issues regarding annex D.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Annex B / Figure B.35


Figure B.34 and Figure B.35

  • Key: SYSML17-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12366
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic ( Darren Kelly)
  • Summary:

    FigureB34 shows an Activity decomposition with:

    • an <<activity>> ControlElectricPower owning part Property 'elecDrivePower:ElecPower'.
    • an <<activity>> ProvideElectricPower without any owned part Properties.

    FigureB35 shows:

    • an Action 'a3:ControlElectricPower' with outgoing ObjectFlow to ObjectNode '<<continuous>> driveCurrent'
    • an Action 'a4:ProvideElectricPower' with outgoing ObjectFlow to ObjectNode '<<continuous>> elecDrivPower'

    The translation of ObjectFlows in FigureB35 to part Properties in the Activity decomposition FigureB34 is thus inconsistent.

    Update: 03/25/2019, added newlines for easier reading

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Tue, 1 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merge with SYSML17-185

    This issue is tracked and resolved in the integrated Annex D model that is required by SYSML17-185.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

parameter of the constraint block StraightLineVehicleDynamics shown in figure B.31 seems to be incomplete


Where have stereotypes been defined?


Annex B, Figure B.29

  • Key: SYSML17-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12160
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic ( Darren Kelly)
  • Summary:

    In Figure B.29 'delta-t' is shown with solid-line (AggregationKind 'composite'), it should be shown with a dashed line (AggregationKind 'none') to be consistent with Figure B.26 BDD for EconomyContext.

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Sun, 6 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merge with SYSML17-185

    This issue is tracked and resolved in the integrated Annex D model that is required by SYSML17-185.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Sample problem: Parts are added directly into package

  • Key: SYSML17-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11499
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Parts are added directly into package. B27 - <<moe>> element that is a part is displayed inside of a package <<view>>

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merge with SYSML17-185

    This issue is tracked and resolved in the integrated Annex D model that is required by SYSML17-185.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

PDF Specification of SystemOfUnits not consistent with XMI

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

    The operations and constraints in section E.5.2.16 SystemOfUnits are not consistent with the definition in the XMI.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sat, 9 Apr 2022 18:09 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Sync section 5.2.16 with XMI

    The XMI is based on the QUDV model, which is the single source of truth. Therefore, the documentation of the operations and constraints in section 5.2.16 must be updated to be in sync with the XMI. This will be achieved thanks to the document generator.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

'Figure 15-4: Behavior Allocation' multiple issues in the diagram and the supporting text

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Webel IT Australia ( Darren Kelly)
  • Summary:

    The title of the section is:

    15.4.1 Behavior Allocation of Actions to Parts and Activities to Blocks

    There is in fact no allocation of an Activity to a Block, there is an allocation of an Activity6 to a Part7.

    From p. 177:

    Specific behavior allocation of Actions to Parts are depicted in Figure 15-4.

    But the diagram includes an allocation from an Activity6 to a Part7 (that it is a part is confirmed by the «part» keyword in the allocatedTo callout).

    The allocation to Activity6 comes from a nested part ..

    The allocation is from the Activity6 to a part ...

    The use of part names 'Part5', 'Part7' with Capitals is confusing. It is much clearer to have property names that are lowerCase. If they must have names with Capitals then the Blocks that type them should be shown (see attached image).

    The use of the part name 'Block1' as the allocation target for Action1 is beyond confusing when there is a block Block1 in the same diagram.

    ASIDE: I wish the RTF diagram contributors would adopt a policy across the entire specfication of using lowerCamelCase (no spaces) for all block properties and UpperPascalCase (no spaces) for all Blocks

    The diagram figure is low resolution and needs to be replaced.

    The following may be in part MagicDraw/Cameo 19SP3 tool issues:

    • The path callout in the Note for the allocatedTo on Activity6 in the tool is '«part» Block4::Block7::part7'; the spec has '«part» Block4.Part5.Part7'
    • The tool could not (as far as I can tell) display the qualified name corresponding to Part:Block1 for the header in a swimlane
  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 1 Jul 2020 03:34 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Behavior Allocation

    Correct the text in following way:

    Specific behavior allocation+s+ of Actions to Parts and Activities to Blocks are depicted in Figure 15-4.

    The allocation to Activity6 from action1 comes from goes to a nested part, and uses the attributes of DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath to specify the path of properties to reach that part. The sourceContext targetContext of the allocation is Block4 Block 0 and the sourcePropertyPath targetPropertyPath is (Part5) part1. Note that the AllocateActivityPartition, if used in this manner, is unambiguously associated with behavior allocation.

    Replace the diagram with this one:

    This diagram can be found in the specification model in the teamwork cloud under Element ID
    mdel://_19_0_4_58401de_1632821659221_739603_774

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

SysML: UML Qualified Associations

  • Key: SYSML17-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10048
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    SysML currently discards UML 2.1 qualified associations (see 8.3.1.4) as not being of interest to the SE community.

    I contest this on two grounds –

    1) a. Qualifiers are used expressively and meaningfully to explain domain situations that have nothing to do with data modeling. For example, when I say a baseball roster had 9 members and that there are 9 positions to fill, I am not explicitly saying that there is one person per position. Qualifiers allow me to clarify this piece of the real world and would be very useful on a BDD.

    b. Qualifiers are also used idiomatically with generalization discriminators to tie parallel generalization structures together. They are capable of modeling situations, such as when there are many types of missiles, each with their own launcher type.

    c. Qualifiers are also used to indicate addressing schemes and mechanisms. For example, by placing an operation/activity etc that returns a type in a qualifier, one can specify the mapping or prioritization /ordering algorithm. Specifying such algorithms may be the SE’s job, when it part of an equation report, algorithm development. This could fit into SysML and support allocation to functional (target prioritization scheme, best antenna-signal function) and structural components (packet routers). This is fully in the spirit of what practicing SEs do and would round out the capability of SysML.[Note that this capability could be delayed for a later SysML, the other parts should be addressed sooner]

    2) Qualifiers appear to be part of small part of UML that is incompatible with use with a SysML strict profile mechanism. Imagine a model done in strict SysML, then brought into UML, where a qualifier is added to the relationship, changing the multiplicity at one end. If the model is then brought back into (strict) SysML and the qualifier is then dropped, the multiplicity cannot be automatically restored (or determined from the model). Because of this, qualifiers must be forbidden in UML in such contexts

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed because a rationale is missing

    In principle, it would be possible to introduce qualified associations, since it is part of UML. It was discussed several times in previous issues and we agreed that it should be covered by SysML v2.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Figure E.8 depicts instance specifications with invalid slots

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

    Figure E.8 depicts instance specifications with a slot "name". None of the classifiers of the instance specification define the appropriate structural feature for the slot.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 20 Apr 2021 10:37 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove invalid slots or replace them with another one

    The types of the instance specifications in figure E-8 and E-9 have no property "name". It seems that the author mixed it up with the name of the instance specification.

    An exception are the instance specifications SI and ISQ in figure E-8. The name slot should be replaced by "description" which is a property of SystemOfUnits and SystemOfQuantities.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

QUDV: SystemOfUnits constraint systemOfQuantitiesIncludesAllUnitsQuantityKinds not documented in PDF

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

    The constraint SystemOfUnits::systemOfQuantitiesIncludesAllUnitsQuantityKinds is specified in the QUDV.xmi, but not mentioned in the PDF in section E.5.2.16.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:53 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Specify constraint SystemOfUnits::systemOfQuantitiesIncludesAllUnitsQuantityKinds in section E.5.2.16

    It seems that the description of the constraint systemOfQuantitiesIncludesAllUnitsQuantityKinds has been overseen in section E.5.2.16 and should be added in the constraint subsection.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Requirements interchange issue

  • Key: SYSML17-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13177
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ProSTEP iViP Association ( Steven Vettermann)
  • Summary:

    Information for facilitating the partner integration within the specification and requirements definition process (requirements interchange) are missing (e.g. meta information like version, access rights).

    Remark: There is a specification already addressing this topic, the Requirements Interchange Format (RIF). It is available for download as ProSTEP iViP Recommendation PSI 6 at www.prostep.org. This specification was introduced to the SE DSIG by Rupert Wiebel from HOOD (a paper is available) and presented by Dr. Steven Vettermann from ProSTEP iViP and discussed at the ManTIS meeting on December 11th.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Facilitating partner integration is out of scope of SysML

    The reporter asks for additional elements in SysML to facilitate requirement interchange. Although this would be useful for SysML, it is out of scope.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Figure E.11: Make it a package diagram and update the URI's


QUDV: Constraints [1] and [2]of SystemOfUnits are operations

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

    In section E.5.2.16, the constraint [1] specifies the body condition of operation isCoherent() and constraint [2] the body condition of operation isCoherent(du).

    So, the specifications should be moved to the operation section and not be listed in the constraint section.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:20 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    QUDV::SystemOfUnits: Move body conditions from constraint to operation section

    The body conditions constraint [1] and constraint [2] for isCoherent() and isCoherent(du:DerivedUnit) should be moved to the operation section after the constraint section.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

clarification, what "part property" is

  • Key: SYSML17-74
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17307
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    The NEW issue - clarification, what "part property" is, as new port types typed by Blocks changed everything, they fit into "part properties" definition.
    SysML 1.3, Page 43 : "A property typed by a SysML Block that has composite aggregation is classified as a part property, except for the special case of a constraint property. "

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Part Property

    Part Property are defined by a composite relationship between block "<<Block>>" elements, in section 8.3.2.4 SysML v 1.6. As for the special cases, they are further defined in the appropriate sections....example the constraint block section 10.1.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

QUDV: SystemOfUnits::accessibleQuantityKinds() is a copy & paste error

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

    The operation SystemOfUnits::accessibleQuantityKinds() specified in section E.5.2.16 is not mentioned in the QUDV.xmi and is identical with the operation of same name in SystemOfQuantities in the previous section E.5.2.15.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 17:02 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove accessibleQuantityKinds() from SystemOfUnits

    It seems that the documentation of SystemOfUnits::accessibleQuantityKinds() was added by accident to the description in section E.5.2.16. It is a copy of the operation in section E.5.2.15.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SimpleQuantityKind::dependsOnQuantityKinds() not specified as a redefinition

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

    SimpleQuantityKind::dependsOnQuantityKinds() redefines the operation QuantityKind::dependsOnQuantityKinds(), but the redefinition is neither specified in the PDF nor in the QUDV.xmi.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 11:20 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    SimpleQuantityKind::dependsOnQuantityKinds() redefines QuantityKind::dependsOnQuantityKinds()

    The redefinition of the inherited operation dependsOnQuantityKinds() should be specified.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

QUDV: Documentation of SystemOfUnits::getUnit() is missing

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

    The operation SystemOfUnits::getUnit() in the QUDV.xmi in not mentioned in section E.5.2.16.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 17:12 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    QUDV: Add documentation of SystemOfUnits::getUnit()

    Add the documentation of SystemOfUnits::getUnit() specified in the QUDV.xmi in section E.5.2.16

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Figure E.19 not consistent with XMI

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

    The constant numbers in figure E.19 are not consistent with the ISO-80000.xmi

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Fri, 7 May 2021 17:50 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Update figure E.19

    The elements depicted in figure E.19 are not part of the ISO-80000.xmi model anymore. The figure should be updated to depict the current content of the model.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

Contradiction regarding allowed use of the derived indicator for constraint parameters

  • Key: SYSML17-77
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17546
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Delligatti Associates, LLC ( Lenny Delligatti)
  • Summary:

    There is a contradiction in the SysML spec. regarding whether constraint parameters-as properties of constraint blocks-may use the derived indicator, "/".

    Pg. 84 of the spec. clearly states the original intent of the SysML Development Team with respect to constraint blocks: "The block constraints are non-causal and do not specify the dependent or independent variables. The specific dependent and independent variables are often defined by the initial conditions, and left to the computational engine."

    On pg. 86, however, the spec. states textually that constraint parameters are properties of constraint blocks: "All properties of a constraint block are constraint parameters, with the exception of constraint properties that hold internally nested usages of other constraint blocks."

    There is no metamodel fragment in the spec. that shows that the stereotype SysML::ConstraintParameter extends the metaclass UML4SysML::Property. The text on pg. 86 (quoted above) conveys this.

    As a result of this (implied) extension relationship, we would have to conclude that a constraint parameter could use the derived indicator, "/", to convey that it is a dependent variable in the constraint expression.

    This stands in contradiction, however, to the intended non-causal, non-directional nature of constraint blocks as expressed on pg. 84.

    Proposed Resolutions:

    1) Add a metamodel fragment to the spec. that clearly shows the extension relationship from SysML::ConstraintParameter to UML4SysML::Property.
    2) Add a constraint to the SysML::ConstraintParameter stereotype disallowing the use of the derived indicator, "/", on constraint parameters.

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Wed, 8 Aug 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Constraint parameters do not need to be constrained to not be derived

    A constraint parameter is a normal property of a constraint block that is not typed by a constraint block. Therefore, it can also be defined as a derived property. According to the UML definition of derived properties, some constraint parameters might be derived:

    "If a Property has isDerived = true, it is derived and its value or values may be computed from other information."

    It seems not to be useful to make the distinction of derived and non-derived properties, but there is no need to forbid them, and it does not contradict the non-causal nature of constraints blocks.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

ConnectorProperty is redundant

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

    The ConnectorProperty is redundant. The same feature is provided by AdjunctProperty.

    see slide 17: http://tinyurl.com/ybvdx6ew

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:26 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution: Deprecate ConnectorProperty

    The AdjunctProperty with a connector as principal provides the same capability as the ConnectorProperty. To continue to be backward compatible, the stereotype ConnectorProperty will not be removed, but marked as deprecated in the specification.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Annex D (Sample problem) should illustrate a nominal usage of the corresponding version of SysML

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

    Considering the purpose of the sample problem, it shall be adjusted so that it reflects a nominal usage of SysML. Usage of obsolete concept/stereotypes shall be replaced without further justification.
    This includes, for instance, the replacement of "UML standard port"/Interfaces by proxy ports/InterfaceBlocks.

    Hence, and even if we will try to keep the sample problem as close as possible to its previous version, some figures of even some parts of it will change, as appropriate with regard to the illustration objective.

    The goal of this issue is to get a global RTF agreement on this.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 6 Jan 2022 16:54 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agree on this update principle

    Per this resolution, and as requested by the issue, we allow the subgroup in charge of the Annex D "Sample problem" to apply changes on it in order to keep it in synchronization with the SysML specification it is part of and in order to make sure it provides an appropriate illustration of a common usage of it.

    Changes related to this concerns will be gathered in a single resolution to a specific issue about "keeping the sample model up-to-date" so that the RTF will still be asked for a global approval of them.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Syntactical clarification for ConstraintBlock

  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merge with SYSML17-252

    The resolution to issue SYSML17-252 implies resolving this one first. For that reason its is convenient to merge them and to provide a common resolution that is specified as a resolution proposal for SYSML17-252

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

9.3.2.9 What is InterfaceBlock?

  • Key: SYSML17-73
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17255
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    9.3.2.9 What is InterfaceBlock? Where is description? Description is the same as constraint [1] text now.
    InterfaceBlock is kind of Block, so, can it be used everywhere Block is used? e.g. part of the FullPort.

    Constraint [2]. Does it mean Interface block can't have value properties and e.g. constraint properties?
    Constaint [3] - does it mean "proxy ports" ? if so, it could be more clear text to say "InterfaceBlock can own proxy ports only"
    constraint [4] - it must be constraint[4] for FullPort???

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Improve the description

    We propose to improve the Description sub-clause of 9.3.2.10 Interface Block by highlighting the definition first, then a bit about their usage.

    Issues about the constraints have already been fixed

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML Issues on Item Property values in an IBD

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18805
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    The SysML spec does not give any notation for (or example of) specifying the values of an item property participating in an item flow. For example, if water flows in multiple places in the distiller, each should be able to have a specified temperature and dissolved matter % (perhaps as distributions).

    Perhaps a variant of a property specific type would work, perhaps a callout approach would work.

    It possible, it would be desirable to allow for multiple item properties:item flows to have the same name within an ibd, as this would be a natural modeling approach (e.g., all the pipes covey the same thing, but with different values).

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 9 Jul 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: SysML Issues on Item Property values in an IBD

    New features are out-of-scope for SysML 1.7 and should be covered by SysML v2 if necessary for SysML.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Return parameters of operations in annex E.5.2 have wrong parameter direction

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

    The return parameters of the operations in annex 5.2 have the parameter direction "in" in the QUDV.xmi, but should have parameter direction kind "return".

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:21 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Set parameter direction kind of return parameters to "return"

    The specification PDF is correct, but not the QUDV.xmi.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Owning Block definition is unclear

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

    The definition of owning block for proxy port given in the description sub-section of 9.3.2.7 FlowProperty is unclear and misleading. It should be reworded and moved to the ProxyPort description

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 2 Mar 2017 15:41 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove the sentence between parenthesis

    The sentence will be removed

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

It is not allowed in UML to display stereotypes of related elements

  • Key: SYSML17-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11496
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Stereotypes, tags and constraints are displayed on elements that can’t have such stereotypes applied. It is not allowed in UML to display stereotypes of related elements (secondary references):
    a) Stereotypes
    i. Block stereotypes are displayed on parts
    ii. Block stereotypes are displayed on object nodes
    iii. Parameter stereotypes are displayed on ActivityParameterNode
    iv. Behavior or operation stereotypes are displayed on CallActions
    b) Tags
    i. Block allocations are displayed on parts
    ii. Units and dimensions shall be possible to show on properties and slots, but these tags are owned in Valuetype
    c) Constraints
    i. Constraints of ConstraintBlock are displayed on constraintProperty (B.30)

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    No change

    The reporter makes a confusion between the stereotype and the keyword symbol (<<xxx>>) that is usually used for representing that a stereotype is applied on the element on which this keyword appears, but not always (see UML 2.5.1 Annex C).

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Figure 8-1: Wrong property notation

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

    The properties notation depicted in figure 8-1 is not correct. If the type is not shown, also the ':' is not shown according to the property notation BNF given in the UML specification in section 9.5.4:

    <property> ::= [<visibility>] [‘/’] <name> [‘:’ <prop-type>] [‘[‘ <multiplicity-range> ‘]’] [‘=’ <default>] [‘

    {‘ <prop-modifier > [‘,’ <prop-modifier >]* ’}

    ’]

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 21 Mar 2021 16:58 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Figure 8-1: Updated property notation

    If a property is depicted without a type, the ':' is not shown. The property syntax is defined in section 9.5.4 of the UML 2.5.1 specification:

    <property> ::= [<visibility>] [‘/’] <name> [‘:’ <prop-type>] [‘[‘ <multiplicity-range> ‘]’] [‘=’ <default>] [‘

    {‘ <prop-modifier > [‘,’ <prop-modifier >]* ’}

    ’]

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

QUDV::LinearConversionUnit constraint isInvertible=true

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

    The QUDV model contains a constraint "invertible: isInvertible=true" for LinearConversionUnit, but is not mentioned in the specification document. I propose to add it to the description in section E.5.2.7.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 05:26 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add constraint description to LinearConversionUnit

    The constraint forces that the inherited property isInvertible is set to true. It is part of the QUDV.xmi, but not described in the specification document.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

QUDV::AffineConversionUnit constraint isInvertible=true

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

    The QUDV model contains a constraint "invertible: isInvertible=true" for AffineConversionUnit, but is not mentioned in the specification document. I propose to add it to the description in section E.5.2.1.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 18 Apr 2021 11:17 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add constraint description to AffineConversionUnit

    The constraint forces that the inherited property isInvertible is set to true. It is part of the QUDV.xmi, but not described in the specification document.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Description of SysMLStructureDiagram is missing

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

    In appendix B, the description stereotype SysMLStructureDiagram in figure B.3 is missing in section B.2.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 13 Apr 2021 09:24 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Added description for SysMLStructureDiagram

    The description of the abstract stereotype SysMLStructureDiagram is missing and should be added.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Figure 11-14 is identical with figure 11-13


Figure 9-5 is identical with figure 9-4

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

    The figure 9-5 is identical with 9-4. It should be the attached figure.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:14 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution: Replace with figure 9-5

    Figure 9-5 is identical to figure 9-4.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

QUDV: dependOnUnits() operation is not redefined

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

    The QUDV blocks DerivedUnit, ConversionBasedUnit, and SimpleUnit define each a dependsOnUnits() operation which should be a redefinition of the inherited Unit::dependsOnUnits() operation.

    The redefinition is neither specified in PDF nor in the QUDV.xmi.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:52 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Redefine dependsOnUnits() operation

    The QUDV blocks DerivedUnit, ConversionBasedUnit, and SimpleUnit define each a dependsOnUnits() operation and inherit the Unit::dependsOnUnits() operation. The definition of the redefinition is missing in the PDF and the QUDV.xmi.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Incorrect placement of sections in chapter 17

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

    Section 17.2 contains a subsection 17.2.1.1, but no subsection 17.2.1.

    Section 17.2.1.1 as well as 17.2.2.1, 17.2.2.2, and 17.2.2.3 cover content from UML and does not add SysML specific information.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:52 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    *Rearrangement of sections in chapter 17 *

    The sections mentioned in the issue description repeat content from the UML specification. It is sufficient to repeat the notation in the diagram table. Therefore, the sections 17.2.1.1, 17.2.2.1 - 17.2.2.3 should be deleted.

    The section 17.2.1 is missing. It got lost after SysML 1.4, and should be added again.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Section C.3.2.3 should not be a section, but only a headline without numbering

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

    Section C.3.2.3 Semantic Variation Points should not be a section with its own numbering. It is just a headline like "Description" in section C.3.2.2.

    The FlowPort was a stereotype of SysML 1.2. In the SysML 1.2 specification document, the section "Semantic Variation Point" was also only a unnumbered headline of the section about FlowPort.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:19 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove section numbering C.3.2.3

    It seems that the numbering was introduced by accident in SysML v1.3 and should be removed.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Figure 13-1 shows two identical names in the same namespace

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

    In figure 13-1, the upper left state machine has two adjunct properties of the same name.

    I propose to simply rename the properties to "submachine state name1" and "submachine state name2".

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:36 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Rename identical adjunct properties

    It is allowed to have two states with the same name, but not two adjunct properties. The adjunct property "submachine state name" must be renamed.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

Figure 12-1 shows two identical names in the same namespace

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

    In figure 12-1, the upper left interaction has two adjunct properties of the same name.

    I propose to simply rename the properties to "interaction use name1" and "interaction use name2".

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 8 Apr 2021 16:06 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Rename identical adjunct properties

    It is not allowed to have two adjunct properties of the same name owned by a namespace.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

Remove second constraint of SysMLBehaviorDiagram

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

    The second constraint of the SysMLBehaviorDiagram is a copy of the second constraint of SysMLActivityDiagram.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 13 Apr 2021 09:28 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove second constraint of SysMLBehaviorDiagram

    Resolve the copy&paste error by removing the second constraint of SysMLBehaviorDiagram.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Definition of part

  • Key: SYSML17-59
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16058
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    The current definition of "part" includes
    ports. Is that intended?

  • Reported: SysML 1.2 — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Definition of a "Part" SysML v1.2, includes ports

    The current Definition of a "part" includes ports, is this intentional?

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

QUDV.xmi: Prefix::symbol multiplicity should be 0..1

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

    In the QUDV.xmi, the multiplicity of Prefix::symbol is 1 while the specification in section 5.2.8 defines a 0..1 multiplicity.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 05:31 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix multiplicity of Prefix::symbol in XMI

    The multiplicity of Prefix::symbol in the XMI should be set to 0..1 as specified in the PDF.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Missing comment for some attributes

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Benoit Maggi)
  • Summary:

    There are some elements that don't have any comment in the SysML.xmi file.
    (The list can be found at the end of the description)

    Our tooling is using these comments to automatically generate documentation

    Small question: Is the xmi file available for contribution? Maybe on a GitHub repository?

    Here is the list
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Activities.stereotype_packagedElement_Probability_ownedAttribute.probability
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Activities.stereotype_packagedElement_Rate_ownedAttribute.rate
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Blocks.stereotype_packagedElement_DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath_ownedAttribute.sourceContext
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Blocks.stereotype_packagedElement_DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath_ownedAttribute.sourcePropertyPath
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Blocks.stereotype_packagedElement_DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath_ownedAttribute.targetContext
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Blocks.stereotype_packagedElement_DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath_ownedAttribute.targetPropertyPath
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Libraries.package_packagedElement_UnitAndQuantityKind.class_packagedElement_QuantityKind_ownedAttribute.definitionURI
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Libraries.package_packagedElement_UnitAndQuantityKind.class_packagedElement_QuantityKind_ownedAttribute.description
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Libraries.package_packagedElement_UnitAndQuantityKind.class_packagedElement_QuantityKind_ownedAttribute.symbol
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Libraries.package_packagedElement_UnitAndQuantityKind.class_packagedElement_Unit_ownedAttribute.definitionURI
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Libraries.package_packagedElement_UnitAndQuantityKind.class_packagedElement_Unit_ownedAttribute.description
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Libraries.package_packagedElement_UnitAndQuantityKind.class_packagedElement_Unit_ownedAttribute.quantityKind
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Libraries.package_packagedElement_UnitAndQuantityKind.class_packagedElement_Unit_ownedAttribute.symbol
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_ElementGroup_ownedAttribute.criterion
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_ElementGroup_ownedAttribute.member
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_ElementGroup_ownedAttribute.name
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_ElementGroup_ownedAttribute.orderedMemeber
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_ElementGroup_ownedAttribute.size
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_Stakeholder_ownedAttribute.concern
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_Stakeholder_ownedAttribute.concernList
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_View_ownedAttribute.stakeholder
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_Viewpoint_ownedAttribute.concern
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_Viewpoint_ownedAttribute.presentation
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Ports_u0026Flows.stereotype_packagedElement_ChangeStructuralFeatureEvent_ownedAttribute.structuralFeature
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Ports_u0026Flows.stereotype_packagedElement_DirectedFeature_ownedAttribute.featureDirection
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Ports_u0026Flows.stereotype_packagedElement_InvocationOnNestedPortAction_ownedAttribute.onNestedPort
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Ports_u0026Flows.stereotype_packagedElement_TriggerOnNestedPort_ownedAttribute.onNestedPort

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 9 May 2016 15:51 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change: Missing comments in XMI

    The current XMI for SysML 1.6 includes all the descriptions of the stereotypes and stereotype features. The model that was used to generate the XMI is the same model that was used to generate the stereotype descriptions in the specification PDF document.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Derived attribute should also be read only

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Benoit Maggi)
  • Summary:

    In the xmi file representing the profile, that can be found here:
    ptc/2015-07-05 http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/20150709/SysML.xmi

    The derived attributes should also be set to read-only:
    <ownedAttribute xmi:id="SysML.package_packagedElement_Requirements.stereotype_packagedElement_Requirement_ownedAttribute.master" xmi:uuid="org.omg.sysml.SysML.package_packagedElement_Requirements.stereotype_packagedElement_Requirement_ownedAttribute.master" xmi:type="uml:Property">
    <name>master</name>
    <isDerived>true</isDerived>
    ...
    </ownedAttribute>

    In Papyrus SysML 1.1 version, the derived attributes have been set to read-only.
    It will be the same for SysML 1.4 implementation. See https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/71034/2/core/org.eclipse.papyrus.sysml14/resources/profile/SysML.profile.uml

    It would be good to provide for SysML 1.5 either the profile with readonly or specify in the norm what should be implemented for the write access

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:42 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Derived properties are not required to be read-only

    The UML specification allows that derived properties are changeable:

    ----------------------------
    Section 9.5.3:
    Derived Properties are often specified to be read-only (i.e., clients may not directly change values). But where a derived Property is changeable, an implementation is expected to make appropriate changes to the model in order for all the constraints to be met, in particular the derivation constraint for the derived Property. The derivation for a derived Property may be specified by a constraint.
    ----------------------------

    A derived property can change if a value of the derivation expression changes.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML primitive value types

  • Key: SYSML17-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15882
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    We have issues with SysML primitive value types - Real, Integer, Boolean, String etc.

    The problem is that these types are not inherited from corresponding UML primitive types - Real, Integer, Boolean, String.
    That means, UML tool can't understand, what kind of ValueSpecification should be created for values of properties typed by these value types.
    Should it be LiteralString or LiteralInteger or OpaqueExpression?
    Constraints can't check if slot values are compatible with property types, as it is not clear what kind of value specification it should be also.
    There are issues in parametrics solving also, as values must be compatible with property types.

    I think, SysML primitives must be directly inherited from UML primitives - Real subtype of UML Real, String subtype of UML String etc.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 8 Dec 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Specialize SysML primitive values types from UML primitive value types

    The SysML primitive values types have no relationship to the UML primitive value types and there is also no relationship to the Literal metaclasses. Therefore, it is not possible to define values for properties typed by a SysML primitive value type.

    A solution is to inherit the SysML primitive value types from the appropriate UML primitive value types.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

SysML: Protocol State Machines needed

  • Key: SYSML17-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10047
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    The current document eliminates Protocol State Machines on the grounds of simplification. See Section 13

    However, this leaves a hole in the capabilities of SysML. Currently, SysML supports UML interfaces (provided and required), which can’t have state machines to define them.

    It is an important part of designing systems interfaces (SE terminology) to define the details of the (UML/SysML) Interfaces. These details include the allowed ordering of messages. As we are not allowed to use behavior state machines and the standard solution, that of, protocol state machines are not included, we can’t properly do interface engineering within SysML

    If some other solution/work-around is proposed (which I don’t recommend) the explanation of how to accomplish this should be in the spec.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Protocol State Machines deferred to SysML v2

    Table 4-1 excludes the model element ProtocolStatemachines from the UML4SysML subset. The impact of introducing ProtocolStatemachines in SysML v1 is too big for v1 and out of scope for an RTF.

    The need for ProtocolStatemachines was already sent to the team working on SysML v2. They identified a high coverage with the SysML v2 RFP requirement INF 1.07.1.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Incorrect description of SysMLBlockDefinitionDiagram

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Mentor, a Siemens Business ( Fabien Launay)
  • Summary:

    Description mentions SysMLBlockDefinitionDiagram stereotype extends UMLPackageDiagram whereas it extends UMLClassDiagram according to Figure B.3 page 219.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Fri, 27 Mar 2020 06:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: SysMLBlockDefinitionDiagram extends UMLClassDiagram

    The SysML Diagram Interchange stereotype SysMLBlockDefinitionDiagram extends UMLClassDiagram (see figure B.3). Section B2.3 incorrectly states that SysMLBlockDefinitionDiagram extends UMLPackageDiagram.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Convention for enumeration not used for ControlValue

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19134
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The convention

    Enumeration types: always end with “Kind” (e.g., “DependencyKind”)

    is not used for the ControlValue enumeration. It should be named ControlValueKind.

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Thu, 5 Dec 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Convention for enumeration not used for ControlValue

    The issue affects version 1.3. It was resolved in the meantime (see SysML 1.6).

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

"Allocated From" should be "Allocated"

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: University of Arizona ( Rick Steiner)
  • Summary:

    The term "Allocated From" associated with the From end of an allocation relationship is confusing when it appears in compartment or callout notation. Nerijus mentions numerous user complaints about this. A more intuitive and meaningful term would be simply "Allocated", which when appearing in a compartment label implies that the subject element has the listed elements in the compartment allocated to it.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:49 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolved: Rename "allocatedFrom"

    The term "allocatedFrom" in the allocate compartment or callout notation is confusing for many model users. After a discussion the RTF decided to rename it to "allocatedElements".

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

Block namespace compartment: Are external relationships allowed

  • Key: SYSML17-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11011
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The block namespace compartment shows a bdd of the elements that are part
    of the namespace of the block.

    Is it allowed to show relationships from a block inside that compartment to
    a external block? The relationship could be in the model, but can I show it
    in the diagram?

    I think it should be allowed. I don't see any problems.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 16 May 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarified that external relationships from and to block namespace compartment are allowed

    Replace the first paragraph of the section with the revised text.

    Text with change marks:
    A compartment with the label “namespace” may appear as part of a block definition to show blocks and other NamedElements that are defined in the namespace Namespace of a containing block. This compartment may contain any of the graphical elements of a block definition diagram. All blocks or other named elements NamedElements that are defined shown in this compartment belong to the namespace Namespace of the containing block, provided this is legal. Elements that cannot be owned by a Block, like Dependencies, can still be shown in the compartment, but without implications for their owner. Relationships between Elements inside and outside of the block’s Namespace may also be shown. Since the relationship is then half outside of the compartment, no conclusion about ownership can be drawn from the diagram.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:
    • rationale.pptx 550 kB (application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation)

Representation of nested object nodes in activity diagrams

  • Key: SYSML17-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13197
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Sanford Friedenthal)
  • Summary:

    Issue: Representation of nested object nodes in activity diagrams. Discussion: It is desirable to be able to represnt nesting of object nodes on activity diagrams to reflect one or more levels of nested properties of the classifier that types the object node. For example, if water is shown as an object node, and it is desired to refer to the temperature of water, then it should be possible to reflect this property on the activity diagram using the notations that are used on ibd's. In particular, one may want to use either a nested rectangle to represent the property, or the dot notation. Proposed update. In the diagram extensions for activity diagrams in Section 11.3.1.4, add a clarifying statement that nested properties of the classifier that types an object node can be represented on activity diagrams either using the nested rectangle notation or the dot notation similar to the use of nesting on ibd's and parametric diagrams.

  • Reported: SysML 1.1 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Corresponding actions shall be used

    • There are two possible cases we see where we would need to work on parts from a whole: (a) the part remains owned by the whole and we just need a reference on it to focus the folowwing behavior on this part, or (b): the part is "dismounted" from the whole (i.e. the ownership changes) and then tit is flowing apart from the whole. In both cases it's necessary to specifiy the appropriate action to be performed:
    • in case (a): actions like "UnmarshallAction" or "ReadStructuralFeatureAction" can be used. Alternatively the "transformation" property of an ObjectFlow can be used. Note that this transformation shall be "side effect free".
    • in case (b): we would use "RemoveStructralFeatureValueAction" for transferring ownership

    We propose a "Closed, no change" resolution.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Table 8.3: Row ActorPart shows Actor

  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution: Show properties typed by Actor in ActorPart row of table 8.3

    The row ActorPart in table 8.3 shows Actor elements instead of properties typed by an Actor.

    SYSML17-286 asks for removing the row ActorPart from the table.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Figure 9-5 and 9-4 are the same

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

    Figure 9-5 (Item Flow Stereotype) is the same as Figure 9-4 (Provided and Required Features).

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 5 Mar 2020 15:39 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Replace figure 9.5

    The figure 9.5 is by accident identical with figure 9.4 and must be replaced.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

Parameter direction typo in XMI


Owned properties of an InterfaceBlock

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

    Split from SYSML16-86:

    What are possible owned properties of the InterfaceBlock? Values, FlowProperties? other? In 9.1 InterfaceBlock it is not flow nor value

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 07:43 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Owned properties of an InterfaceBlock

    InterfaceBlock constraint 2_no_part defines the possible owned properties.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

10.3.1.2 Parametric Diagram: square box notation

  • Key: SYSML17-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12131
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic ( Darren Kelly)
  • Summary:

    10.3.1.2 Parametric Diagram: clarify applicability of square box notation to constraint parameters (or otherwise) SysML1.0, 10.3.1.2 Parametric Diagram: 'Small square box notation for an internal property A value property may optionally be shown by a small square box, with the name and other specifications appearing in a text string close to the square box. The text string for such a value property may include all the elements that could ordinarily be used to declare the property in a compartment of a block, including an optional default value. The box may optionally be shown with one edge flush with the boundary of a containing property. Placement of property boxes is purely for notational convenience, for example to enable simpler connection from the outside, and has no semantic significance. If a connector is drawn to a region where an internal property box is shown flush with the boundary of a containing property, the connector is always assumed to connect to the innermost property.' It is not clear whether 'value property' here is meant to refer to a constraint parameter. Also, the term 'internal property' does not exclude, for example, nested constraints, leaving open the possibility of drawing nested constraint properties using square box notation, which is surely not intended. The following suggests that only constraint parameters - not value properties - are intended: SysML1.0, , 10.3.2.1 ConstraintBlock: '[1] A constraint block may not own any structural or behavioral elements beyond the properties that define its constraint parameters, constraint properties that hold internal usages of constraint blocks, binding connectors between its internally nested constraint parameters, constraint expressions that define an interpretation for the constraint block, and general-purpose model management and crosscutting elements.' Rewrite SysML1.0, 10.3.1.2 Parametric Diagram, replacing all references to 'value property' and 'internal property' with 'constraint parameter': 'Small square box notation for a constraint parameter A constraint parameter may optionally be shown by a small square box, with the name and other specifications appearing in a text string close to the square box. The text string for such a constraint parameter may include all the elements that could ordinarily be used to declare the property in a compartment of a block, including an optional default value. The box may optionally be shown with one edge flush with the boundary of a containing property. Placement of constraint parameter boxes is purely for notational convenience, for example to enable simpler connection from the outside, and has no semantic significance. If a connector is drawn to a region where a constraint parameter box is shown flush with the boundary of a containing property, the connector is always assumed to connect to the constraint parameter.'

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Wed, 2 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Clarify square box notation in parametric diagrams

    The paragraph 10.3.1.2 in SysML 1.0 is identical with the text in paragraph 10.3.1.2.3 in SysML 1.6. The reporter is right that the statements are misleading. It is intended to specify the notation of constraint parameters.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Do parametric bindings observe derived and read-only properties

  • Key: SYSML17-39
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15003
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    Do parametric bindings observe derived and read-only constraints on properties?

    .

    In SysML if I bind a read-only property value to a parameter, I would expect that any evaluation of the parametric model would not be able to update the property value. If I wanted to have such a value calculated, I would expect to take off the read-only constraint

    Similarly, if I bind a derived property value to a parameter, I would expect that any evaluation of the parametric model would not use that value as an input, but only as an output.

    However, this is answered (and I hope it is answered positively), the SysML specification should clarify this behavior

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    ConstraintBlock is a constraint no a mechanism

    A ConstraintBlock is intended to represent a constraint that can happen to be met or violated. Tools vendors providing simulation facilities may want to implement a synchronization mechanism based on it but it's not required by this specification. If such a mechanism is provided, it is expected that either the tool will enforce the constraint or will notify a constraint violation if any. But again, this is not part of this specification.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Annex B / B.4.8.3 Activity Diagram (in sample problem)

  • Key: SYSML17-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12144
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic ( Darren Kelly)
  • Summary:

    B.4.8.3 Activity Diagram (EFFBD): refers to allocations to parts instead of blocks SysML1.0: 'B.4.8.3 Activity Diagram (EFFBD) - Acceleration (detail) Figure B.35 shows the ProvidePower activity, using the decomposed activities and objectFlows from Figure B.34. It also uses AllocateActivityPartitions and an allocation callout to explicitly allocate activities and an object flow to parts in the PowerSubsystem block.' In fact the AllocateActivityPartitions in Figure B.35 represent blocks, not part Properties typed by blocks.

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Wed, 2 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Already fixed

    This issue does not appears anymore in the specification

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML: References to CreateEvent incorrect

  • Key: SYSML17-76
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17467
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    In UML 2.4.1, the equivalent to createEvent and desturctionEvent are now called messages. This should be followed in SysML. This changes the text in the 1st row of Table 12.1 on page 116, but it may impact other places also.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Sat, 7 Jul 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: References to create and destruction messages

    The referenced elements UML4SysML::CreationEvent and UML4SysML::DestructionEvent do not exist. Table 12-1 must be updated.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

About Rate, Continuous and Discrete

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18735
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    In the figure shown below, Continous and Discrete stereotypes seems to be applied an ActivityParameterNode of an Activity. However, those aforementioned stereotype do not extend ActivityParameterNode but only Parameter and ActivityEdge. Is it an error?

    In the same order, <<continuous>>, <<discrete>> and <<rate>> are also applied on something called “Object Node”? However, <<Rate>> seems not to extend any node.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 23 May 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate of SYSML17-265

    SYSML17-265 is also about Rate extending ObjectNodes.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

IBD notation doesn't distinguish item properties from connector labels

  • Key: SYSML17-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15983
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Item properties and connector labels both appear in colon notation near the center of an assocation. How do you tell the difference?

  • Reported: SysML 1.2 — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Stereotype keyword can be used

    There is still the possibility to show the <<ItemFlow>> stereotype keyword. By doing this there no ambiguity anymore and no change is required.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

Association owning ends

  • Key: SYSML17-62
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16263
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Associations in SysML should be able to own their ends. Otherwise modelers can't add an association between blocks in model libraries they do not have permission to modify. They also cannot create association that are non-navigable in both directions, which might be useful for directing flows across them into flows contained by the association as a block.

  • Reported: SysML 1.2 — Wed, 25 May 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Already fixed

    Associations own their non-navigable ends

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Allocate: Error in operation bodies

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

    The body condition of the Allocate::getAllocatedFrom()
    getAllocatedFrom = Allocate.allInstances()->select(to = ref).from
    should be
    getAllocatedFrom = Allocate.allInstances()->select(supplier = ref).client

    to and from are no stereotype or metaclass properties. The appropriate properties are client and supplier defined in the metaclass "Dependency".

    Accordingly change the Allocate::getAllocatedTo() body condition as well as the name "getAllocatedFrom" to "getAllocatedTo":

    getAllocatedTo = Allocate.allInstances()->select(supplier = ref).client.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:19 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolved: Error in operation body conditions of getAllocatedFrom() and getAllocatedTo()

    The body condition of the Allocate::getAllocatedFrom() and Allocate::getAllocatedTo() operations are not correct. Fix them as proposed in the issue description.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

UML::ExceptionHandler should be part of SysML

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

    According to chapter 4.1 of the SysML 1.6 specification document, RaiseExceptionAction is part of SysML, but the ExceptionHandler is not part of UML4SysML.

    It makes sense to have a complete exception mechanism in SysML, for example, to model exceptional conditions like the violation of a constraint.

    Throwing an exception is not restricted to software, but a useful logical concept of modeling flow behaviors. For instance, it is also included in BPMN.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 21 Nov 2019 11:30 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution: Add UML::ExceptionHandler to SysML

    The UML::ExceptionHandler element is missing in SysML and must be added to UML4SysML.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML: Generalizing Activites

  • Key: SYSML17-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10058
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    Section 11 should show an example of generalization/specialization of Activiites when then are being shown in a bdd.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Add example about generalizing activities

    Add a new block definition diagram (figure 11-15) depicting a activity generalization.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

Shared parts are still parts

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

    The standard treats non-composite aggregation (white diamond) as the poor cousin of composite aggregation (black diamond) by lumping it into a group of block properties called “references”. (6th paragraph in section 8.3.2.3 Block.) So whilst parts (composite aggregation) have their own compartment, non-composite aggregates have to share a compartment with all of the reference block properties. This also occurs on the IBD with all the types of references being drawn with a dashed rectangular frame. At the very least I would propose that non-composite parts are called reference-parts (as opposed to “owned” parts for the composite ones) and are given their own compartment.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:10 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Shared parts are still parts

    New features respectively removing features are out-of-scope for SysML 1.7 and should be covered by SysML v2 if necessary for SysML.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Stakeholder constraint is listed twice

  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Stakeholder constraint is listed twice

    Remove the duplicated constraint "not_association".

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Error in pending 1.3 diagram 15.6 and elsewhere

  • Key: SYSML17-70
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16947
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    In Figure 15.6 in pending SysML 1.3, on the left side of the diagram, the object-flow, labeled objectflow3 is a dashed line. From table 11.2, object flows always use solid lines (though control flow can use either solid or dashed).

    This was also wrong in SysML 1.2, though the diagram number was then 15.5.

    Thanks to Geoffrey Shuebrook who pointed this out to me,.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 9 Jan 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Wrong object flow notation

    In SysML 1.6, Figure 15.5. and 15.6. depict the object flow with a solid line.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Bad reference in section 4.2

  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Bad reference in section 4.2

    Add the correct reference to the bullet point.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Lack of notation for units and dimensions on values.

  • Key: SYSML17-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11493
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Lack of notation for units and dimensions on values. There are no samples at all

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Notation for units and dimensions - already resolved

    The notation for units and dimensions was added in SysML 1.6 as a resolutions for issue SYSMLR-330.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML: Align SysML Activities with Foundational UML

  • Key: SYSML17-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13152
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    SysML: Align SysML Activities with Foundational UML

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Align SysML Activities with fUML

    There is no misalignment between SysML Activities and fUML.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

DirectedFeature is confusing

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

    The intended use for the <<DirectedFeature>> stereotype is not at all clear from its specification in section 9.3.2.4 in SysML 1.5. To be clear, the current description describes what it is, but not why it is required, or how a modeller might use it. Moreover, it is not clear whether it specifically applies to ports (since its part of the section that specifies the language facilities for ports and flows (section 9), or whether it relates to features (properties?) of a block that are not ports.

    The issue was discussed at the RTF meeting of 2017-10-12 as a result of discussing issue http://issues.omg.org/browse/SYSML16-108. There was little consensus on what DirectedFeature is, although Conrad suggested the following (being my interpretation of what was said):
    A DirectedFeature of a block describes whether the block implements that feature (it's "provided") or that the feature is represents a conceptually virtualised feature as an "assumption" that something else in the model will provide it. The fulfilment of the required assumption with an actually provided realisation of that feature is by a connector between the required and the provided features.

    The problem with this interpretation is that it seems to have nothing to do with ports! There is of course further scope for confusion with the UML notation of provided and required interfaces on UML ports.
    At the very least, some examples that clearly illustrate what problem DirectedFeature solves and the types of model elements that it is to be applied to would help a lot.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:39 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Improved description of DirectedFeature

    The description in SysML 1.6 has improved quite considerably. However it can be further improved by slightly modifying the way the corresponding text is structured and by clarifying that any feature are implicitly "provided" if no DirectedFeature stereotype is applied

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

VerdictKind enumeration missing

  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    *Resolution: Add enumeration VerdictKind *

    The enumeration VerdictKind is missing in the specification document. It used in the constraints of the TestCase and it is part of the SysML.xmi.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

The AdjunctProperty is not clearly described

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

    The benefit of the recently introduced Adjunct Property is not clearly stated in the standard. The current description is somewhat baffling and a recent discussion amongst learned members of the SysML RTF revealed further uncertainty.
    The standard's development needs to be sensitive to the general criticism that SysML is too complex. Thus language features that are described from their purely functional/implementation point of view neither inform the user community what they are for or, as seems to be the case here, make it clear that this part of the language that is a solution to a problem inherited from UML that modelling tools need to implement and end users need not be too concerned with.
    I would also question whether it was correct to change section 11.3.1.1 "Activity" by replacing the BDD representation of activity hierarchy (as per v1.3) with adjunct action properties (introduced in v1.4). Whilst the latter is possible with the AdjunctProperty facility, the prior method, inherited from UML, is still valid. That is, unless the UML activity hierarchy is expressly deprecated from SysML. Even then, it will leave end users with the question of what the additional benefit is of the adjunct property as applied to call behaviour actions.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:53 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    AdjunctProperty not clearly defined: Resolution provided by other issue resolutions

    Split the issue to SYSML17-248 and SYSML17-255.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Reference Properties do not reference properties

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: University of Arizona ( Rick Steiner)
  • Summary:

    A reference property of a Block may only be typed by (i.e. "reference") another Block. There is no current mechanism for a reference property to explicitly reference a part property of a different block. See Figure D.16 for example; the PowerSubsystem Block is assumed to be referencing the part property of the BrakeSubsystem typed by BrakePedal. This is a logical conclusion since there is only one part property typed by BrakePedal, but if there were multiple part properties typed by BrakePedal, the reference property of the PowerSubsystem Block would be ambiguous.

    Practical use of reference properties has consistently implied that a particular part property CAN be referenced (i.e. "a part property owned by another block"), but no mechanism for this is explicitly provided in SysML. Also, there does not appear to be any constraint on instance semantics of reference properties that might clarify this ambiguity at the instance level.

    See also SYSML16-42 and SYSML16-228.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Tue, 17 Oct 2017 00:17 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Reference properties do not reference properties

    Discussed during May 16th, 2019, RTF meeting:

    We believe that the requested capabilities are already provided by the current SysML version. There are multiple ways to represent such constructs:

    1. A binding connector and optionally a BoundReference property can be used
    2. Derived attribute and/or an operation
    3. Specific properties that subset the collection (assuming the types of the properties owners conform to one another)
    4. Using proxy ports with appropriate connectors

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

AllocateActivityPartition: Reference to UML specification is wrong

  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    AllocateActivityPartition: Reference to UML specification

    The subclause number references an older version of the UML specification. It is hard to manage those links between separate specifications. Therefore, we follow the proposal of the issue author to remove the absolute reference.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Replace UML4SysML::Kernel by UML4SysML::Generalization

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Benoit Maggi)
  • Summary:

    In SysML 1.5 pdf document ( p 147 Table 14.2- Graphical paths included in Use Case diagrams)

    Latest element in the table :

    • Path name: Generalization
    • Concrete Syntax : ->
    • Abstract Syntax Reference : UML4SysML::Kernel
      => it should be UML4SysML::Generalization

    Also present in SysML 1.4 pdf version

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:13 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Replace UML4SysML::Kernel with UML4SysML::Generalization

    The abstract syntax reference is not correct as pointed out by the reporter of the issue and must be resolved as proposed.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML::Trace relationship is not specialized from UML::Trace in the XMI

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

    The SysML::Trace stereotype is a specialization of the UML::Trace stereotype defined in the StandardProfile.

    In the SysML XMI the SysML::Trace stereotype has no generalization relationship to the UML::Trace stereotype. It is just a stereotype extending UML::Abstraction.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:53 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution: Model generalization from stereotype SysML::Trace to UML::Trace

    The XMI is not conform to the written specification. The generalization relationship between the SysML::Refine and the UML::Refine stereotypes as specified in figure 16.1 is not defined in the XMI.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

SysML::Refine relationship is not specialized from UML::Refine in the XMI

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

    The SysML::Refine stereotype is a specialization of the UML::Refine stereotype defined in the StandardProfile.

    In the SysML XMI the SysML::Refine stereotype has no generalization relationship to the UML::Refine stereotype. It is just a stereotype extending UML::Abstraction.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:55 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution: Model generalization from stereotype SysML::Refine to UML::Refine

    The XMI is not conform to the written specification. The generalization relationship between the SysML::Refine and the UML::Refine stereotypes as specified in figure 16.1 is not defined in the XMI.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Verdict described incorrecty

  • Status: closed  
  • 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
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution: Describe verdict as return parameter

    The verdict is not a property, but a return parameter of a test case. See 16.3.2.6 for the definition of a test case.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Typos/editorials found in the SysML 1.5 specification document

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

    This issue is dedicated to typos and editorials we find in the SysML1.5 specification document.

    Any finding has to be recorded as an annotation added to a shared PDF document available on the OMG SVN server at: http://www.omgwiki.org/repos/SysML/trunk/Documents/formal-17-05-01(annotated).pdf

    >>> Note to RTF Chairs: do not schedule this issue for vote before the last ballot of the RTF <<<

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:14 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    1.6 is done

    to be replace by a new issue similar to this one but about 1.6 rather than 1.7

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Description of AdjunctProperty

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

    The first sentence of the description of the Adjunct property stereotype does not make sense:
    "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"

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Mon, 7 May 2018 12:13 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML17-248

    Discussed during RTF meeting, Sep. 19th:
    SYSML17-248 is also about clarifying the definition of an AdjunctProperty.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Inherit from a conjugated interface block

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19644
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Figure 9.7 shows that the types of parts that are connected with binding connectors with proxy ports inherit from the proxy port types. That assures that all the features of the interface block type of the proxy port are implemented by the part.

    However in practice you typically have for most proxy ports also a connected conjugated proxy port. You can't inherit from a conjugated interface block and therefore must manually define a conjugated version of the interface block. In summary that supersedes the concept of conjugation.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 17 Oct 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Inherit from a conjugated interface block

    The issue affects SysML 1.4. It was resolved in the meantime (see SysML 1.6).

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

ElementGroup cannot be source or target of a dependency

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19595
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The stereotype ElementGroup extends the base class comment which is not a NamedElement. Therefore a ElementGroup can't be source or target of a dependency and it is not possible to use an ElementGroup for instance with a trace or satisfy relationship.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Sun, 7 Sep 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: ElementGroup cannot be source or target of a dependency

    It is not possible to resolve the issue without a major change of the model element or a change of the UML. The addressed problem was already discussed when the ElementGroup element was created. There is no solution with the underlying UML.

    It can be resolved with SysML v2.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Property path notation

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    SysML spec says:

    The name of the referenced property is built by a string of names separated by “.”, resulting in a form of path name that identifies the property in its local context.

    The problem is that in real-life models properties/parts are unnamed. In this case, it is not clear how property path should look like, or looks like this:
    name1…..value or vehicle….value where intermediate properties are unidentifiable.

    A proposed solution would be to use type name if part name is not specified.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 21:14 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Property path notation

    The issue affects version 1.4. It was resolved in the meantime (see SysML 1.6).

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

AllocateActivityPartition should be more formaly related to allocation Relationship

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

    Assuming an AllocateActivityPartition is used to specify allocations, the element created in the model to represent it should be more formally linked to the corresponding Allocate relationships.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 15:33 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: AllocateActivityPartition should be more formaly related to allocation Relationship

    New features are out-of-scope for SysML 1.7 and should be covered by SysML v2 if necessary for SysML.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

A discarded resolution still appears in the ballot

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

    Resolution SYSML-331 was discarded from ballot#8, replaced by SYSMLR-359 then added to ballot#9.

    However in ballot#9, SYSMLR-331 still appears beside SYSMLR-359 with all the votes casted in the ballot#8!

    It's rather confusing because, in addition, JIRA said that we already voted for this ballot, which is not true!

    Can we fix this?

    Thanks

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 21 Oct 2016 05:56 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: A discarded resolution still appears in the ballot

    The issue is about a Jira bug, and not about SysML

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Requirement ID should be immutable

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19764
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Requirement IDs, as currently specified by the standard and implemented by vendors, are not adequate to ensure robust traceability outside MBSE models. The standard describes ID as "The unique Id of the requirement”. I would suggest replacing this sentence with "The unique and immutable Id of the requirement." This immutable characteristic is key to ensure robust traceability throughout a project with external stakeholders and documents.

    The current practice of using a hierarchical number for the ID is bad practice that should be discouraged, because a hierarchical ID will necessary change when the hierarchy is refactored, which is almost guaranteed to happen. This breaks traceability. I recognize that there is also a need for a hierarchical ID, mainly to be used to sort requirement tables properly using this property. For that use case, I would suggest a new ID called HID with the following description: “A unique hierarchical identifier, used to organize requirements within a package”

    Since we now have two different IDs that serve two different purposes, we should give guidance for which one should be used as the prefix in front of the name, depending of the context. My suggestion is as follows:

    • In a traceability context, the ID should be the prefix shown in front of the name. For example, when showing the table column "Derived From", the ID should be the prefix shown, not the HID.
    • In a hierarchical context (for example, in the containment tree), the HID should be shown as the prefix in front of the name.
    • When in doubt, use the ID in preference over HID.
  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 29 May 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Requirement ID should be immutable

    New features are out-of-scope for SysML 1.7 and should be covered by SysML v2 if necessary for SysML.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Specify a specific part from a collection of parts on an IBD

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

    There is no way of saying which part from a collection (i.e. a plural cardinality/multiplicity) is being shown and hence there is no clear and unambiguous way of showing multiple parts from a collection separately on an IBD. E.g. the spokes on a wheel is easily modelled in a BDD as a collection of spokes, but not easily set out in an IBD, whereas, individually named (by role) spokes can be set out in an IBD, but, for more than a few, this becomes awkward to show on a BDD.
    For at least ordered collections (i.e. plural multiplicities) of parts (aggregate roles) the traditional use of square bracket array notation could be used, e.g. mypart[10] would refer to the 10th instance of part collection called "mypart". For unordered collections a selector (i.e. query) would be required.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:47 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Specify a specific part from a collection of parts on an IBD

    New features are out-of-scope for SysML 1.7 and should be covered by SysML v2 if necessary for SysML.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Expand use of rake symbol for all decompositions

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19783
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: University of Detroit Mercy ( Michael Vinarcik)
  • Summary:

    I’d like to advocate for rakes on Call Operation nodes (that have associated methods) in the next SysML rev. We’re using operations extensively because they inherit nicely and have inputs/output parameters. By moving to Call Operations from Call Behaviors, we lose the rake that’s a visible sign you can drill deeper…so by using Call Operations with methods instead of Call Behaviors, we lose that visual cue.
    I put a stereotype with icons on the nodes as a fix, but I’d love to see it as a native function.

    I suggest that rake symbols should be expanded to include call operations on activity diagrams with methods attached (or any other situation in which drill-down is available).

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 9 Jun 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Expand use of rake symbol for all decompositions

    New features are out-of-scope for SysML 1.7 and should be covered by SysML v2 if necessary for SysML.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Connectors are not allowed in bdd

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

    Figure D.23 depicts two blocks with ports that are connected by a connector.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:33 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove illegal connector/association

    Figure D.23 had, up through SysML 1.6, a bdd with a connector between the ports of two blocks. SysML 1.6 diagram was a slight modification of this, with an association between the blocks that was rendered through the ports. This is more legal, but ambiguous and doesn't meet the original intent. This proposal includes a replacement diagram without the offending connector. The diagram was generated out of the same model that generated the SysML 1.6 diagram, but with the association removed.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

Numeric Literals as constraint block property parameter values

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

    It would be very useful to have the ability to have literal values as parameter values to a constraint block property. (Helps with reuse of constraint blocks.) Even better, to be able to use named constants from a (shared) library package (i.e. a different namespace), which could combine a description of the value with quantity and unit attributes.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:26 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.7
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Numeric Literals as constraint block property parameter values

    New features are out-of-scope for SysML 1.7 and should be covered by SysML v2 if necessary for SysML.

  • Updated: Thu, 22 Dec 2022 13:45 GMT

Statements missing in the abstract syntax description