${taskforce.name} Avatar
  1. OMG Task Force

SysML 1.6 RTF — Closed Issues

Open Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
SYSML16-367 Constraints on Satisfy and Verify should refer to AbstractRequirement SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-358 Allocate constraint#3 does not make sense SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-349 ItemFlow constraint#3 does not make sense in every case SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-468 The constraint#3 of NestedConnectorEnd could be replaced by a redefinition SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-462 Setting flow properties on blocks with multiple behavioral ports SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-455 Composite properties allowed for InterfaceBlocks SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-662 Error in the revised text for SYSML16-132 SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-274 Most constraints are missing their OCL statement SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-254 Clarify port usage patterns SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-226 Arbitrary diagram linkage to model elements SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML16-132 Semantics consistency of conjugated behavior ports SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-191 Keyword signal in reception compartment is superfluous SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-100 Incorrect constraint [2] on InterfaceBlock SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-366 Constraints for Refine and Trace can be improved SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-365 Copy constraints #2 and #3 shoud be merged together SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-356 Rate constraint#2 is ambiguous SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-355 Probability constraint#1 is ambiguous SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-354 The OCL statement of ConstraintBlock constraint#3 is wrong SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-353 The constraint#6 of TriggerOnNestedPort could be replaced by a redefinition SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-352 The statement of TriggerOnNestedPort constraint#5 is wrong SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-351 The statement of TriggerOnNestedPort constraint#4 is not appropriate SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-348 ItemFlow constraint#1 implicilty contrains ItemFlow to rely on a binary relation SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-343 Constraint#5 InvocationOnNestedPortAction could be replaced by a redefinition SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-397 Diagram guidelines uses excluded UML element SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-389 Change keyword of binding connector from "equal" to "=" SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-185 Instance for Initial values SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-131 Proxy port “complete” specification (§ 9.3.2.12): SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-198 Most diagram headers in document are not consistent with Appendix A, p 189. SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-357 Allocate constraint#1 could be replaced by a redefinition SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-342 The statement of InvocationOnNestedPortAction constraint#3 is not appropriate SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-341 Constraint#2 of the InvocationOnNestedPortAction stereotype is invalid SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-329 Constraints redundancy in DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-326 BoundReference constraint#3 is unclear SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-325 Typo in AdjunctProperty Constraint#10 SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-154 Block, Constraint [4]: Block-typed properties must be defined by an association is superfluous SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-136 Update SysML references to UML model library StandardProfileL2 SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-106 Constraint [5] should include specializations of Requirement SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-92 remove figure numbers from diagram frames SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-80 Issue on Block constraint#4 SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-76 Problems with property-specific types SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-399 Nested diagrams in SysML SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-393 Binding connectors have no keyword syntax in parametric diagrams SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-387 Equal sign for binding connector SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-382 Allow a Requirement to be contained on Any Diagram SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-314 The association-like notation is ambiguous SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-275 Typo in xmi file for orderedMember SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-160 Cannot navigate and represent deep nested defining feature in a slot SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Transfered closed
SYSML16-149 <> should be a reference (dashed box) SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-79 Lightweight representations of faults, failures, hazards and off-nominal conditions and behavior SysML 1.2 SysML 1.6 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML16-40 Parsing Text in Requirements SysML 1.1 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-38 Inability to represent dependent, independent parameters on constraint properties SysML 1.1 SysML 1.6 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML16-34 Requirement constants should be integrated into Model-centric vision of SysmL SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML16-33 Section: 8/8.3.2 Inability to efficiently capture datasets SysML 1.1 SysML 1.6 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML16-151 Provide support to capture engineering quantities and support intricate calculations SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML16-395 Binding connectors in internal block diagrams must always show the keyword SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-321 View constraint#3 is incorrect SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-303 References to UML specification in block constraints are not correct SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-300 Remove sentences about qualified associations in clause 8.3.1.3 SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-299 Remove the statement about N-ary associations from 8.3.1.3 SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-229 Constant Block Value Properties SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-130 Flow property description: incorrect wording (§9.3.2.7) SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-181 Binding Connector should not be typed SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-125 Allow the equal symbol, =, without guillemets as an alternative diagram notation for SysML binding connectors SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-104 View and Viewpoint Limitations in support of auto-view generation SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-90 Is <> keyword (or stereotype) on binding connectors is part of SysML notation? SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-26 Section: Generalization of stereotyped elements SysML 1.0 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-345 SysML stereotype constraints should be named rather than numbered SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-337 Compartment headers are missing in figure 8.10 and 8.11 SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-334 Incorrect diagram header in figure 8.11 SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-332 EndPathMultiplicity constraint#2 uses a wrong name to refer to a stereotype property SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-331 UnitAndQuantityKind figure missing block keyword SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-323 AdjunctProperty constraint#8 can be simplified SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-188 ParticipantProperty keyword SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Transfered closed
SYSML16-310 SysML::Block constraint#3 containts an incorrect assertion about UML SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-295 Remove [sic] in block constraints SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-201 Behavior Diagram Element tables imply diagrams can be nodes SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-69 Incorrect statement about UML n-aries SysML 1.2 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-67 Compartment labelling rules SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-44 Need to have an explicit way to bind flow properties or atomic flow ports to block properties SysML 1.1 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-165 Initial values compartment header inconsistent with others SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-203 Update description about extension of UML SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-183 SysML specification document cleanups SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-182 NestedConnectorEnd violates UML "roles" constraint SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-180 AdjunctProperty principal should be a NamedElement SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-186 The type of ParticipantProperty SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-281 Clarify if the usage of qualified associations is allowed SysML 1.5b1 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-280 Association arrowheads should not be forbidden SysML 1.5b1 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-192 SysML does not clearly defines how an association defines properties SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-225 Stakeholder model element not precisely defined SysML 1.6 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-211 Block constraint [4] contains a false statement SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-177 Incorrect multiplicity for base_xxx properties of most SysML Stereotypes SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-173 Wrong parameter for Operations in the SysML.xmi SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-166 RequirementRelated is present in the summary but no more in the document SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-202 Activity should not be included as graphical node included in activity diagrams SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Duplicate or Merged closed
SYSML16-87 Port labels inside Port symbol SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-86 Section 9.3.1.7 SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-171 xmi:IDs are not convenient SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-205 SysML Provides Inadequate Support for Reuse of Requirements SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-207 Typos in SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-187 ParticipantProperty stereotype is redundant SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-184 ISO DIS 19514 (JTC1 Comments against SysML 1.4) SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-168 DeriveReqt constraints multiplicity of Client and Supplier SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-178 The XMI file isn't conform to the pdf specification for Refine and Trace stereotypes SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-174 Spec document inconsistent with Normative profile XMI file ptc/2013-12-11 SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-199 BNF definitions have literals/terminals in italics, which seems to imply that the occurrences of these strings should be in italics, but they are not. SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-122 SysML 1.3 is incorrect that full ports cannot be behavioral and is inconsistent about what behavioral ports are SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-110 Ports and Flows SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-94 Problems with 1.3 Enumeration Literals SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Resolved closed
SYSML16-43 Flow port compatibility with behavior SysML 1.1 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-4 Section: 9.3.2.5 FlowPort SysML 1.0 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-196 layout error for compartment name SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-13 Sample problem: Parts are added directly into package SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-12 It is not allowed in UML to display stereotypes of related elements SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-11 Lack of notation for units and dimensions on values. SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-10 BindingConnector end s multiplicity SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-9 Issue: Nested connector ends SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-8 standard way to describe a flow of data in sequence diagrams SysML 1.0 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-7 Block namespace compartment: Are external relationships allowed SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-6 Timing diagrams SysML 1.0 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-5 the use of <> is still unclear and inconsistent SysML 1.0 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-3 SysML: Generalizing Activites SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-2 SysML: UML Qualified Associations SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-1 SysML: Protocol State Machines needed SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-193 Constraint clarification SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; Out Of Scope closed
SYSML16-195 Missing one right parenthesis in the constraint equation SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed
SYSML16-30 SysML: Operations on Activities need to be callable (e.g., start, restart, cancel) SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-29 SysML: Activity Properties should be accessible in Activity diagrams for decision making SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-28 SysML: Align SysML Activities with Foundational UML SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-27 Figure B.34 and Figure B.35 SysML 1.0 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-25 Annex B, Figure B.29 SysML 1.0 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-24 Annex B / Figure B.38 SysML 1.0 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-23 Annex B / Figure B.35 SysML 1.0 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-22 Annex B / Figure B27 SysML 1.0 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-21 Annex B / Figure B.9 SysML 1.0 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-20 Annex B / Figure B.10 SysML 1.0 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-19 Annex B / B.4.8.3 Activity Diagram (in sample problem) SysML 1.0 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-18 10.3.1.2 Parametric Diagram: square box notation SysML 1.0 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-17 Item Flows on Activity Diagrams SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-16 Inferred Allocation on Allocate Activity Partitions SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-15 Diagram interchange SysML 1.0 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-14 SysML: Interaction diagram and Data-based comm of SysML SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-52 SysML 1.2 Issues: Default stereotype on unlabeled box is not always optimal SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-51 SysML 1.2 Issue Viewpoint referencing other viewpoints properties SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-50 Flow properties and activity paramters SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-49 Inheriting Allocations SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-48 Ability for a binding connector to be typed SysML 1.1 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-47 Do parametric bindings observe derived and read-only properties SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-46 Binding to multiplicity in parametrics SysML 1.1 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-45 callout notation issues SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-42 Proposal to have a stereotype for reference nested property SysML 1.1 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-41 Table 16.2 (top of pg. 146): Trace Dependency concrete syntax diagram incorrect SysML 1.1 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-39 Allocations should not generate dependencies SysML 1.1 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-37 AllocateActivityPartition and UML 2 semantics SysML 1.1 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-36 Support BDD's for State Machines SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-35 Binding Relationships require unit conversions SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-32 Representation of nested object nodes in activity diagrams SysML 1.1 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-31 Requirements interchange issue SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-62 Blocks cannot own items flows SysML 1.2 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-61 Another issue with allocate SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-60 SysML primitive value types SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-59 SysML Issue on Multiplicity of Use Case Communication Associations SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-58 SysML Issue representation of properties as associations SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-57 SysML Issue based on UML 15369 SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-56 Figure B.35 object nodes SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-55 SysML 1.2 Issues: Optional with streaming SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-54 Continuous flows in non-streaming situations with >1 multiplicities SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-53 SysML 1.2 Issues: DistributedProperties on Activates SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-78 InstanceSpecification equality SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-77 InstanceSpecifications for exactly one instance SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-75 Content of Requirement::/tracedTo SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-74 Can Enumerations be used on parametric diagrams for typing constraint parameters SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-73 TestCase should use PackageMerge SysML 1.2 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-72 Association owning ends SysML 1.2 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-71 parameter of the constraint block StraightLineVehicleDynamics shown in figure B.31 seems to be incomplete SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-70 Where have stereotypes been defined? SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-68 Definition of part SysML 1.2 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-66 Item flows can have multiple types but item properties cannot SysML 1.2 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-65 SysML Issue on Refine limitations SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-64 Description of Item Flows SysML 1.2 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-63 IBD notation doesn't distinguish item properties from connector labels SysML 1.2 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-99 Missing type constraints for FullPort SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-98 Missing ownership constraints SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-97 Interface blocks and protocols SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-96 How to refer to properties of an extension? SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-95 Contradiction regarding allowed use of the derived indicator for constraint parameters SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-93 SysML: References to CreateEvent incorrect SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-91 Callout notation for port-specific types and initial values SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-89 clarification, what "part property" is SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-88 9.3.2.9 What is InterfaceBlock? SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-85 SysML XMI seems to define its own versions of UML Primitive Types rather than reusing those from UML SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-84 Property Based Requirements SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-83 Error in pending 1.3 diagram 15.6 and elsewhere SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-82 Question about the Activity decomposition in Block Definition Diagrams SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-81 SysML's PrimitiveValueTypes library is missing "value" properties everywhere SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-119 primitive types in SysML Activities SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-118 Semantics of multiple Dependencies SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-117 Clarification required for Copy relationship SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-116 Diagram show inconsistent data SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-115 Don't use the optional notation for Pins with Allocation SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-114 Libraries package should be named "SysML Model Libraries" SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-113 Allocated notation on object nodes missing from diagram elements table SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-112 Allocation tabular notation normative? SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-111 Figures 15.5 and 15.6 diagram types SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-109 9.3.2.4 direction of ports and their notation (second issue) SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-108 9.3.2.4 direction of ports SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-107 Inability to specify partial allocation and requriements satisfaction SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-105 Figure 15.8 diagram type SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-103 VerdictKind SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-102 SysML stereotype notation creates ambiguity about to which element is the stereotype applied SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-101 Fix the notation (hopefully in the same way as UML) to allow allocation of a decision to a swimlane SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-141 classifierBehaviorProperty and adjunctProperty notation SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-140 URI for the SysML Profile given in section E.3 is wrong SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-139 Abstract syntax for the initial values SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-138 Update to Trace Relationship’ SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-137 Convention for enumeration not used for ControlValue SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-135 Deprecate Unit and QuantityKind stereotypes in 1.4 SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-134 proxy and full port notation change request SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-133 Semantics clarification for removing a value from an out Flow Property SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-129 Depletive/non-depletive semantics of ReadStructuralFeatureActions on FlowProperties SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-128 Pull semantics for flow properties SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-127 SysML Issues on Item Property values in an IBD SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-126 SysML says nothing about how to deal with multiplicity for flow properties matching SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-124 About Rate, Continuous and Discrete SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-123 The SysML classification of properties is incomplete SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-121 Unclear is StructuredActivityNode owned Actions should be Allocated SysML 1.3 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-120 ProxyPort with FlowProperties SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-159 Make ItemFlow a specialization of DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-158 Resolve inconsistency concerning restricion of ItemFlow type hierarchy SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-157 specializations of requirement should specialize AbstractRequirement SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-148 Inherit from a conjugated interface block SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-147 More than one View() operation allowed SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-146 Table 12.1 has incorrect "int" typed arguments (4x) SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-145 ElementGroup cannot be source or target of a dependency SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-144 [SysML] Semantic variation points SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-143 Can a SysML Full Port be typed by a ValueType? SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-142 Need clarification about possible configurations of the new ports introduced in SysML 1.3 and of their semantics SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-150 Missing property descriptions for Probability and Rate SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-156 A discarded resolution still appears in the ballot SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-164 ConnectorProperty notation in wrong section. SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-153 Does the objectiveFunction stereotype generalizes the ConstraintBlock stereotype or UML::property? SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-155 ISO-80000 ValueType stereotype applications have wrong unit and quantityKind values SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-152 Property path notation SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-169 AllocateActivityPartition should be more formaly related to allocation Relationship SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-228 Shared parts are still parts SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-227 Specify a specific part from a collection of parts on an IBD SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-176 Missing comment for some attributes SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-172 SysML XMI typos in UML StandardProfile XMI references SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-170 No support for dot notation in activity and sequence diagrams SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-189 Derived attribute should also be read only SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-167 Copy, DeriveReqt don't have operations, but Refine, Satisfy, Trace, Verify do. SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-161 Definition of SysML stereotypes: association ends versus attributes SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-162 Description of model elements in generated document not consistent with specification SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-163 Parts, references, values compartments in wrong section SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-194 Causality of constraints in parametric diagrams SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-197 "Allocated From" should be "Allocated" SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-179 Hanging Clauses Throughout SysML 1.4 SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-206 Expand use of rake symbol for all decompositions SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-204 Requirement ID should be immutable SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-371 Reference Properties do not reference properties SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-372 DirectedFeature is confusing SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-364 Statements missing in the abstract syntax description SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-344 Typos/editorials found in the SysML 1.5 specification document SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-417 SysML 1.6 should be based on UML 2.5.1 SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-409 Excluded UML metaclasses are not formally defined SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-333 Replace UML4SysML::Kernel by UML4SysML::Generalization SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-328 Inconsistency in the DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath specification SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-319 Clarification of typing a binding connector SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-298 Replace all occurrences of "has been" by "is" SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-294 Parameter direction typo in XMI SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-288 The AdjunctProperty is not clearly described SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-264 Owned properties of an InterfaceBlock SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-263 FullPort type SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-253 Owning Block definition is unclear SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-231 Diagram formality confusion SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-230 Numeric Literals as constraint block property parameter values SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-373 Add Graphical notation for General Classifier SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-350 Do not move deprecated elements SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-465 DistributedProperty should be abstract SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-464 Description of AdjunctProperty SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-458 Inconsistency between xmi and pdf for Trace and Refine specializations SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-421 Typo in revised text of issue SYSML16-289 SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-404 Add signal to constraint [1] for DistributedProperty SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-478 Diagram header is not intuitively interpreted SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-483 ConnectorProperty is redundant SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-482 DistributedProperty shall have an operation that checks whether a value is conform to the constraints of the distribution SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-481 DistributedProperty should be abstract SysML 1.5 SysML 1.6 Deferred closed
SYSML16-175 Dubious UUIDs SysML 1.4 SysML 1.6 Closed; No Change closed

Issues Descriptions

Constraints on Satisfy and Verify should refer to AbstractRequirement

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

    Constraints owned by either Satisfy or Verify stereotype still refer to the SysML::Requirement stereotype while they should have been modified so that they refer to the AbstractRequirement stereotype added in 1.5

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 21 Sep 2017 09:34 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML16-274

    To be fixed as suggested by SYSML16-311
    Constraints owned by either Satisfy or Verify stereotype shall refer to SysML::AbstractRequirement instead of the SysML::Requirement stereotype.

    Revised Text:
    SysML::Satisfy::Constraint#1 shall be replaced by:
    The supplier shall be an element stereotyped by any subtype of «AbstractRequirement»

    AbstractRequirement.allInstances().base_NamedElement->includes(self.base_Abstraction.supplier)
    

    SysML::Verify::Constraint#1 shall be replaced by:
    The supplier shall be an element stereotyped by any subtype of «AbstractRequirement»

    AbstractRequirement.allInstances().base_NamedElement->includes(self.base_Abstraction.supplier)
    
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Allocate constraint#3 does not make sense

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

    Allocate constraint#3 states:


    If subtypes of the «allocate» dependency are introduced to represent more specialized forms of allocation, then they shall have constraints applied to supplier and client as appropriate.

    This is neither clear nor verifiable. It should be removed

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 09:20 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML16-274

    Remove the constraint #3 as suggested

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

ItemFlow constraint#3 does not make sense in every case

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

    ItemFlow constraint#3 makes the implicit assumption that both source and target of an ItemFlow are properties:

    itemProperty shall be a property of the common (possibly indirect) owner of the source and the target.

    However they can be Classifiers as well.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 14:06 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML16-274

    To be fixed as suggested by SYSML16-311.
    Revised text:
    If itemProperty has a value it shall be a property of the common (possibly indirect) owner of the source and the target.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

The constraint#3 of NestedConnectorEnd could be replaced by a redefinition

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

    The constraint#3 of NestedConnectorEnd could be advantageously replaced by making base_ConnectorEnd a redefinition of the base_Element property

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 31 May 2018 14:43 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML16-274

    To be fixed as part of SYSML16-311:

    • Make base_ConnectorEnd a redefinition of base_Element property
    • Delete constraint#3
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Setting flow properties on blocks with multiple behavioral ports

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Nicolas Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Setting a flow property on blocks with multiple behavioral ports that also have that property causes the new value to propagate out through all the ports (see test case in B.3.2.3, Block with Multiple Behavior ProxyPorts in https://www.omg.org/spec/PSCS/1.1). Modelers should be able to specify which behavior port the value flows through.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Fri, 27 Apr 2018 15:18 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add flow property value action, onport

    Provide the requested capability

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT
  • Attachments:

Composite properties allowed for InterfaceBlocks

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

    As discussed at Reston , issue SYSML16-100 shall be extended to include all kind of composite properties allowed on InterfaceBlocks

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 5 Apr 2018 14:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML16-100 (and SYSML16-274)

    Constraint to be modified to cover all kind of composite properties allowed.
    Revised text:
    Interface blocks' composite properties are either ports, value properties or flow properties

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Error in the revised text for SYSML16-132

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

    Conrad Bock points out that the OCL for the InterfaceBlock::getConjugated() operation in the revised text approved in the corresponding resolution (i.e. SYSML16-289) that was included in Ballot#8 was wrong. Indeed, this OCL correspond to a obsolete version of the resolution that was based on Dependency.

    The right OCL for the body condition of that getConjugated() operation is:

    ~InterfaceBlock.allInstances()->any(ib | ib.original = self)
  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:44 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix the OCL code

    Fix the OCL code as suggested.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Most constraints are missing their OCL statement

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

    Only few constraints specified in SysML v1.5 have a corresponding formal OCL statement. Even if not all of them can be expressed using SysML, most of them could. This would help clarifying then and will remove ambiguity that shall remain in their English description.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:18 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Provide OCL statements for SysML stereotype constraints everywhere possible

    The resolution will result in a version of the SysML profile models that will include OCL statements for constraints everywhere we will be able to write one or the sentence: "Cannot be expressed in OCL" otherwise

    Here is the URL to models in the SVN branch for this issue resolution: http://www.omgwiki.org/repos/SysML/branches/SYSML16-311

    Note: If you want to contribute leave a comment below, and don't forget to "lock" (SVN) but avoid keeping the version locked too long and commit your work in order to not block other contributions. Thanks!

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT
  • Attachments:

Clarify port usage patterns

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

    The following sentence is misleading:

    9.1.3 Proxy Ports and Full Ports

    'SysML identifies two usage patterns for ports, one where ports act as proxies for their owning blocks
    or its internal parts (proxy ports), and another where ports specify separate elements of the system (full ports).'

    There are in fact at least three usage patterns: normal (UML) ports, full, and proxy.

    There is a prevailing misunderstanding that normal ports should not be used at all in SysML.
    (There are dozens of places in the spec stating that normal ports still can be used.)

    This has lead to recent tool vendor errors not offering
    a basic ports compartment, although it is clearly specified and even shown in some figures.

    A single word might improve things:

    'SysML identifies two additional usage patterns for ports …’

    Or more verbosely:

    'SysML identifies two more specific usage patterns for ports in addition to standard ports …

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Sun, 5 Mar 2017 19:33 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    All usage kinds are defined

    The two "usage patterns" specified by the referenced text actually described two mutually exclusive options. A "third" option, if any will be not to choose between this two alternatives. This is specified by applying none of those SysML stereotype or, in other words, to use the UML concept of port natively.

    So, I would not be correct to tell about "additional usage patterns".

    In addition there is this sentence at the end of the first paragraph of section 9.1.3: "Ports that are not specified as proxy or full are simply called “ports.", then in the next paragraph : "Proxy and full ports support the capabilities of ports in general, but these capabilities are also available on ports that are not declared as proxy or full. Modelers can choose between
    proxy or full ports at any time in the development lifecycle, or not at all, depending on their methodology"

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Arbitrary diagram linkage to model elements

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

    Most modelling tools provide some means of connecting a model element to any of the diagrams in the model and then provide a means of (tool users) navigating through the linked diagrams by opening the linked diagrams directly from the nodes representing these model elements on a diagram. (The means for doing this is tool specific, although common conventions for following links exist in many GUI environments.) In general this is a very useful feature. Is it not time that the SysML standard acknowledged this and standardised it?
    Two further considerations arise:
    1. XMI support for denoting the model element diagram linkage, and
    2. The standardised means of indicating that a diagram node has linked diagrams, perhaps by the adornment with a defined glyph in a specified location on the nodes shape.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:10 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Might be addressed by API in SysML20.

    Might be addressed by API in SysML20.
    Needs to be traced to SysML20 and addressed there.

    Out of scope of RTF.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Semantics consistency of conjugated behavior ports

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18952
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    Per the definition of behavior proxy ports, they have their owner for value. This implies that a classifier typing a port is a classifier for the owner of the port as well. However, when that classifier specifies directed features or flow properties, these feature specifications shall be interpreted so that their directions are reverted if the port is conjugated (isConjugated=true). The point is that, if the owner is not itself a port, there is no means to specify that such an interpretation applies. Thus, assuming one needs to refer to the owner as the instance realizing the port, it will be required to explicitly use (and then model) a classifier specifying the corresponding feature in the opposite direction. This makes the useful conjugation concept unusable in practice.

    The implementation of the conjugation concept should be modified so that it is not limited to port and applicable to block definitions as well.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Conjugation dependency proposal

    The conjugation mechanism can be implemented at type level by defining a new stereotype, specialized from InterfaceBock in order to specify a conjugated type.
    This conjugated InterfaceBlock definition shall have the same feature defined as the original type but – where applicable – with the inverted directions. Note that the corresponding features could be automatically computed or checked by the tool.
    In the conjugated InterfaceBlock, direction of any FlowProperty or DirectedFeature is inverted (i.e. as specified for a conjugated port today)

    To avoid any ambiguity or conflict the UML mechanism for port conjugation must be disabled this is achieved by adding a constraint to the SysML::Block stereotype so that all owned ports shall have their "isConjugated" property set to "false". In addition, and for consistency, the UML mechanism will be deprecated.

    In order to keep an equivalent notation one can give the conjugated interface block the same name than the original type with the tilde symbol "~" prepended but it is not required by this resolution.

    A migration procedure is provided for legacy models: for any port with isConjugated=true, get its type and look in the scope for an existing conjugated type. If none is found create it. Replace the port's type by that conjugated type and set its isConjugated property to false.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT
  • Attachments:

Keyword signal in reception compartment is superfluous

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

    The resolution of issue SYSMLR-153 describes the reception compartment of blocks that was not yet covered by SysML. The notation of SYSMLR-153 is identical with the notation defined in the UML specification.

    The signal keyword before the reception is superfluous. The reception compartment already unambiguously depicts that only receptions are shown.

    I propose to remove the keyword <<signal>> from the notation.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 16:36 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add a section in 8.3.1.1 to describe receptions compartment

    Description of receptions compartment is missing.
    Insert one similar to the other descriptions of compartments

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Incorrect constraint [2] on InterfaceBlock

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18183
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PTC ( Phillip Astle)
  • Summary:

    Constraint [2] specifies that "Interface blocks cannot have composite properties that are not ports". However, in order to show FlowProperties, typed by ValueTypes and owned by InterfaceBlocks, you need to be able to have composite properties.

    The constraint at the moment is too strict and needs to be changed to allow certain composite properties.

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Reword constraint#2

    Modify constrain#2 as suggested and in order to merge with issue SYSML16-455 as well, as part of SYSML16-274:
    Revised text:
    Interface blocks' composite properties are either ports, value properties or flow properties_

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Constraints for Refine and Trace can be improved

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

    Refine constraint#1 states:

    The Refine stereotype shall only be applied to dependencies

    and Refine constraint#2 states:

    Dependencies with a Refine stereotype or one of its specializations applied shall have exactly one client and one supplier.

    • SysML::Refine specializes StandardProfile::Refine that extends UML::Abstraction. So the constraints should refer to UML::Abstraction rather than to UML::Dependency
    • constraint#1 could be replaced by a redefinition

    The same with the SysML::Trace stererotype

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 21 Sep 2017 08:46 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML16-274

    To be fixed as suggested by SYSML16-311:
    1/ Refine stereotype:

    • Add a base_Abstraction property to the SysML::Requirements::Refine stereotype with the type UML::Abstraction and a multiplicity of [1] and make it a redefinition of both UML::StandardProfile::Refine::base_Abstraction and SysML::Blocks::DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath::base_DirectedRelationship
    • Delete Constraint#1 from SysML::Requirements::Refine
    • Constraint# 2 textual statement shall be replaced by:
      Abstractions with a Refine stereotype or one of its specializations applied shall have exactly one client and one supplier
    • Constraint# 2 OCL statement shall be:
      self.base_Abstraction.client->size()=1 and self.base_Abstraction.supplier->size()=1

    2/ Trace stereotype:

    • Add a base_Abstraction property to the SysML::Requirements::Trace stereotype with the type UML::Abstraction and a multiplicity of [1] and make it a redefinition of both UML::StandardProfile::Trace::base_Abstraction and SysML::Blocks::DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath::base_DirectedRelationship
    • Delete Constraint#1 from SysML::Requirements::Trace
    • Constraint# 2 textual statement shall be replaced by:
      Abstractions with a Trace stereotype or one of its specializations applied shall have exactly one client and one supplier
    • Constraint# 2 OCL statement shall be:
      self.base_Abstraction.client->size()=1 and self.base_Abstraction.supplier->size()=1
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Copy constraints #2 and #3 shoud be merged together

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

    Copy constraint#2 states:

    The text property of the client requirement is constrained to be a read-only copy of the text property of the supplier requirement.

    While Copy constraint#3 states:

    Constraint [2] is applied recursively to all subrequirements.

    They should be merged in one unique constraint so that the requested recursivity could be formally stated in OCL using an helper operation

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 21 Sep 2017 08:33 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SysML16-274

    To be fixed as part of SYSML16-311

    • Add an "Operations" sub clause with the following operation definition:
      isCopy (in req1 : AbstractRequirement, in req2 : AbstractRequirement) : Boolean [1]
    bodyCondition:
    let subReq1: Set(AbstractRequirement) = AbstractRequirement.allInstances()->select(r | req1.base_NamedElement.ownedElement->includes(r.base_NamedElement)) in
    let subReq2: Set(AbstractRequirement) = AbstractRequirement.allInstances()->select(r | req2.base_NamedElement.ownedElement->includes(r.base_NamedElement)) in
    req1.text = req2.text and
    subReq1->size() = subReq2->size() and
    subReq1->forAll(r1 | subReq2->exists(r2 | self.isCopy(r1, r2) ))
    
    • Constraint#2's textual statement shall be replaced by:
      The text property of the client requirement is constrained to be a read-only copy of the text property of the supplier requirement and this applies recursively to all subrequirements (i.e. requirements related by a containement relationship)
    • Constraint#2's OCL statement shall be:
      let cltReq: AbstractRequirement = AbstractRequirement.allInstances()->any(r | self.base_Abstraction.client->includes(r.base_NamedElement)) in
      let supReq: AbstractRequirement = AbstractRequirement.allInstances()->any(r | self.base_Abstraction.supplier->includes(r.base_NamedElement)) in
      self.isCopy(cltReq, supReq)
      
    • Constrain#3 shall be deleted
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Rate constraint#2 is ambiguous

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

    Rate constraint#2 states:

    The rate of a parameter shall be less than or equal to rates on edges that come into or go out from pins and parameters nodes corresponding to the parameter

    This is ambiguous since SysML::Rate::rate is typed by UML::InstanceSpecification for which "less than or equal to" is not defined

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 08:49 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML16-274

    To be fixed as part of SYSML16-311 by assuming than the specification of Rate can be given a OCL::Real value:

    The complete OCL statement for this constraint shall be:

    self.base_Parameter->notEmpty() implies (
    	let nodes: Set(UML::ObjectNode) =
    	if self.base_Parameter.owner.oclIsKindOf(UML::Behavior) then
    		let pOwner: UML::Behavior = self.base_Parameter.owner.oclAsType(UML::Behavior) in
    		UML::CallBehaviorAction.allInstances()->select(a | a.behavior = pOwner)->collect(a | a.argument->at(pOwner.ownedParameter->indexOf(self.base_Parameter)))
    		->union(UML::StartObjectBehaviorAction.allInstances()->select(a | a.behavior() = pOwner)->collect(a | a.argument->at(pOwner.ownedParameter->indexOf(self.base_Parameter))))
    		->union(UML::ActivityParameterNode.allInstances()->select(n | n.parameter = self.base_Parameter))
    		->asSet()		
    	else if self.base_Parameter.owner.oclIsKindOf(UML::Operation) then
    		let pOwner: UML::Operation = self.base_Parameter.owner.oclAsType(UML::Operation) in
    		UML::CallOperationAction.allInstances()->select(a | a.operation = pOwner)->collect(a | a.argument->at(pOwner.ownedParameter->indexOf(self.base_Parameter)))->asSet()
    	else
    		Set(UML::ObjectNode){}
    	endif endif in
    	nodes.incoming->flatten()->union(nodes.outgoing->flatten())
    	->forAll(e | let eRate: Rate = Rate.allInstances()->any(r |  r.base_ActivityEdge=e) in
    		(not eRate.oclIsUndefined() and self.rate. specification.realValue() <= eRate.rate. specification.realValue()))
    )
    
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Probability constraint#1 is ambiguous

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

    Probability constraint#1 states:


    The «probability» stereotype shall only be applied to activity edges that have decision nodes or object nodes as sources, or to output parameter sets.

    This is ambiguous since ParameterSets have no direction, only their parameters have.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 07:48 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    A constraint defined by UML on parameter sets clarify it

    See UML::ParameterSet constraint named "same_parameterized_entity": its implies that all parameters of a set have the same direction

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

The OCL statement of ConstraintBlock constraint#3 is wrong

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

    ConstraintBlock constraint#3 states:


    Any property of a block that is typed by a ConstraintBlock shall have composite aggregation.

    And the following OCL statement is provided


    self.ownedAttribute->forAll(p | p.type.oclIsKindOf(ConstraintBlock) implies p.aggregation = #composite)

    The OCL is invalid and wrong since "self" refers to the stereotype instance while this is the property typed by the ConstraintBlock which is constrained

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 06:52 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML16-274

    Fix the OCL statement as proposed in the comment as part of SYSML16-311:

    self.base_Class.ownedAttribute->forAll(p| p.isComposite)

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

The constraint#6 of TriggerOnNestedPort could be replaced by a redefinition

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

    The constraint#6 of TriggerOnNestedPort could be advantageously replaced by making base_Trigger a redefinition of base_Element property

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Wed, 13 Sep 2017 06:37 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML16-274

    To be fixed as part of SYSML16-311:

    • Make base_Trigger a redefinition of base_Element property
    • Delete constraint#6
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

The statement of TriggerOnNestedPort constraint#5 is wrong

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

    The constraint#5 of TriggerOnNestedPort states:


    The type of the port at the last position of the onNestedPort list must own or inherit the port of the stereotyped invocation action.

    This constraint should refer to the stereotyped trigger.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Wed, 13 Sep 2017 06:33 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML16-274

    Fix as part of SYSML16-311 as suggested.

    Constraint #5 textual statement shall be replaced by:
    The type of the port at the last position of the onNestedPort list must own or inherit the port of the stereotyped trigger

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

The statement of TriggerOnNestedPort constraint#4 is not appropriate

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

    The TriggerOnNestedPort constraint#4 is stated:

    The first constraint of ElementPropertyPath shall apply to onNestedPort

    Such a reference to another constraint that, in addition, requires substituting words in order to be contextualized is not appropriate. It shall be properly stated in a straightforward way.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Wed, 13 Sep 2017 06:25 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SysML16-274

    To be fixed as part of SYSML16-311:

    • The textual statement shall be replaced by:
      The port at each successive position of the onNestedPort attribute, following the first position, shall be owned by the Block that types the port at the immediately preceding position, or a generalization of the Block.
    • The corresponding OCL statement shall be:
      self.onNestedPort->size() >1 implies self.onNestedPort->subSequence(2, self.onNestedPort->size())->forAll(p |
      let np: UML::Port = self.onNestedPort->at(self.onNestedPort->indexOf(p)-1) in
      let owners: Set(UML::Classifier) = np.type.oclAsType(UML::Classifier)->including(np.type.oclAsType(UML::Classifier)) in
      owners->includes(p.owner))
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

ItemFlow constraint#1 implicilty contrains ItemFlow to rely on a binary relation

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

    ItemFlows constraint#1 implicitly implies that the corresponding InformationFlow has no more than one target and one source:

    A Connector or an Association, or an inherited Association shall exist between the source and the target of the
    InformationFlow.

    However this is not explicitly stated. Constraint#1 should be improved or a specific constraint shall be added.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 13:45 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    The constraint does not assume that

    It should be a way for the flow to occur between every source and every target ("star connection pattern").

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Constraint#5 InvocationOnNestedPortAction could be replaced by a redefinition

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

    the constraint#5 of InvocationOnNestedPortAction stereotype states:


    InvocationOnNestedPortAction shall only be applied to invocation actions

    This is because it inherits from ElementPropertyPath the ability to be potentially applied to any UML::Element.

    However we could easily restrict this by making its base_InvocationAction property a redefinition of the base_Element property of its parent.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 7 Sep 2017 07:51 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML16-274

    To be fixed as suggested by SYSML16-311:

    • Make the base_InvocationAction property a redefinition of the base_Element property of its parent stereotype.
    • Delete constraint #5
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Diagram guidelines uses excluded UML element

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

    Appendix A.2 Guidelines (for Diagrams) says:

    "SysML provides the capability to represent a document using the UML 2 standard stereotype «document» applied to
    the artifact model element. Properties of the artifact can capture information about the document. Use a «trace»
    abstraction to relate the document to model elements. The document can represent text that is contained in the related
    model elements."

    However, the artifact model element is excluded from SysML and cannot be used (see table 4.1).

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 09:55 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove diagram guideline about representing documents

    The diagram guideline in section A.2 refers to the excluded UML model element Artifact.

    "SysML provides the capability to represent a document using the UML 2 standard stereotype «document» applied to
    the artifact model element. Properties of the artifact can capture information about the document. Use a «trace»
    abstraction to relate the document to model elements. The document can represent text that is contained in the related
    model elements."

    The guideline should be removed. How to represent documents in SysML models must be answered by methodologies.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Change keyword of binding connector from "equal" to "="

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

    The keyword "equal" needs a lot of space in a diagram. It would be better to have shorter notation for binding connectors.

    The proposal is to use the equal sign = instead of the keyword with guillements <<equal>>.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:55 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposal: Change keyword of binding connector from "equal" to "="

    Add the equal sign = instead of the keyword <<equal>> as an additional alternate notation for binding connectors. Binding connectors are often used in internal block diagrams and the keyword <<equal>> clutters the diagram. The equal sign is much shorter and the meaning is commonly known.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Instance for Initial values

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    SysML spec says:
    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.

    There is no reason why instance should be unnamed or must be owned in particular package, the same as blocks are defined in. Opposite, it would be very useful to use named instances and other packages for ownership.

    Proposal : remove both redundant constraints from the text.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 21:17 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Instance For Initial Values

    Remove the following sentence in section 8.3.2.1 paragraph 11:

    " The instance Specification shall be unnamed and owned by the same package that own the outermost containing block for which the initial values are being specified."

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Proxy port “complete” specification (§ 9.3.2.12):

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18909
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    if a proxy port P1 has a nested proxy port P1::P2 and both are non-behavioral, does it mean that both P1 and P1::P2 must be explicitly connected to internal parts? If P1 is just a logical group of nested proxy ports, there may be no sense to connect P1 per se internally (but it makes sense to connect P1 externally).

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarification

    §9.3.2.12 “ProxyPort”, states the following:
    1. “Completely specified proxy ports must be connected to internal parts or be behavioral ”
    2. “Internal connectors to ports are the ones inside the port’s owner (specifically, they are the ones that do not have a UML partwithPort on the connector end linked to the port, assuming NestedConnectorEnd is not applied to that end, or if NestedConnectorEnd is applied to that end, they are the connectors that have only ports in the property path of that end) ”
    3. “When a proxy port is connected to multiple internal parts, the connectors have the same semantics as a single binding connector to an aggregate of those parts, supporting all their features, and treating flows and invocations from outside the aggregate as if they were to those parts, and flows and invocations it receives from those parts as if they were to the outside ”
    4. “This aggregate is not a separate element of the system, and only groups the internal parts for purposes of binding to the proxy port ”
    YBE: according to the above, we can infer that a proxy port which is no more than an aggregate of its nested ports is “completely specified” if all its nested ports are either connected to internal part or behavioral

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT
  • Attachments:

Most diagram headers in document are not consistent with Appendix A, p 189.

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

    The majority of diagrams with frames have problems with their headers.
    The types of problems are as follows:
    1) Just the diagram type (no element name, type, diagram type)
    2) Stereotypes in the header (not in the diagramusage field)
    3) Use of element type not listed in the Appendix (e.g., activity)
    4) Can't tell if the text field is an element name or a diagram name
    5) All text, not just the diagram type, is bold.
    6) Non-obvious element type (block, package, ?)

    These problems make the spec look like it was carelessly made. When the results are ambiguous or unclear, it encourages sloppy modeling by users.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 5 Nov 2015 22:02 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Most diagram headers in document are not consistent with Appendix A, p 189.

    as part of the automatic generation of the document the headers will be consistent.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Allocate constraint#1 could be replaced by a redefinition

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

    Allocate constraint#1 states:

    The Allocate stereotype shall only be applied to abstractions

    Could be removed if its base_Abstraction property redefines the base_DirectedRelationship property it inherits from DirectedRelationship
    PropertyPath

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 14 Sep 2017 09:14 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML16-274

    To be fixed as part of SYSML16-311 by making base_Abstraction a redefinition of base_DirectedRelationship.

    Constraint#1 can then be removed

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

The statement of InvocationOnNestedPortAction constraint#3 is not appropriate

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

    The InvocationOnNestedPortAction constraint#3 is stated:

    The first constraint of ElementPropertyPath shall apply to onNestedPort

    Such a reference to another constraint that, in addition, requires substituting words in order to be contextualized is not appropriate. It shall be properly stated in a straightforward way.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 7 Sep 2017 07:23 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML16-274

    To be fixed as part of SYSML16-311 directly in the OCL statement:

    The SysML::ElementPropertyPath::Constraint#1 states:
    The property at each successive position of the propertyPath attribute, following the first position, shall be owned by the Block or ValueType that types the property at the immediately preceding position, or a generalization of the Block or ValueType.

    So the OCL code for SysML::InvocationOnNestedPortAction::Constraint#3 shall be:
    The port at each successive position of the onNestedPort attribute, following the first position, shall be owned by the Block that types the port at the immediately preceding position, or a generalization of that Block .

    self.onNestedPort->size() > 1 implies self.propertyPath->subSequence(2, self.onNestedPort->size())->forAll(p |
    let pp: UML::Property = self.onNestedPort->at(self.onNestedPort->indexOf(p)-1) in
    let owners: Set(UML::Classifier) = pp.type.oclAsType(UML::Classifier)->including(pp.type.oclAsType(UML::Classifier)) in
    owners->includes(p.owner))
    
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Constraint#2 of the InvocationOnNestedPortAction stereotype is invalid

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

    InvocationOnNestedPortAction constraint #2 states:

    The port at the first position in the onNestedPort list shall be owned (directly or via inheritance) by a block that types the target pin of the invocation action, or one of the block’s generalizations

    However the InvocationAction metaclass has no "target" pin, only some of its subclasses have.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 7 Sep 2017 07:14 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML16-274

    To be fixed as suggested by SYSML16-311.
    The principle of the resolution will be to write the OCL code so that each possible case is considered:

    let target: UML::InputPin = if self.base_InvocationAction.oclIsKindOf(UML::CallOperationAction) then 
    	self.base_InvocationAction.oclAsType(UML::CallOperationAction).target
    else if self.base_InvocationAction.oclIsKindOf(UML::SendSignalAction) then 
    	self.base_InvocationAction.oclAsType(UML::SendSignalAction).target
    else if self.base_InvocationAction.oclIsKindOf(UML::SendObjectAction) then 
    	self.base_InvocationAction.oclAsType(UML::SendObjectAction).target
    else
    	invalid
    endif endif endif in
    not target.oclIsUndefined() and (
    let target_type: UML::Class = Block.allInstances()->any(b | b.base_Class = target.type).base_Class in
    not target_type.oclIsUndefined() and target_type.allFeatures()->includes(self.onNestedPort->first()))
    
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Constraints redundancy in DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath

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

    The 4 first constraints of DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath are defined as follows:

    [1]sourceContext shall have a value when source is a property, otherwise it shall not have a value.
    [2]targetContext shall have a value when target is a property, otherwise it shall not have a value.
    [3]source shall be a property when sourcePropertyPath has a value.
    [4]target shall be a property when targetPropertyPath has a value.

    #1 implies #3 and #2 implies #4, so #3 and #4 are redundant and should be deleted.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:38 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Reporter is wrong

    Reporter was confused, nothing wrong here.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

BoundReference constraint#3 is unclear

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

    BoundReference constraint#3 states the following:

    The role of boundEnd shall be a property accessible by navigation from instances of the block owning the property to which BoundReference is applied, but shall not be the property to which BoundReference is applied, or one that it is related to by redefinition.

    It's not clear what "navigable" means here. Please clarify.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Tue, 8 Aug 2017 15:18 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML16-274

    Clarify as suggested as part of SYSML16-311.
    Revised text:

    self.base_Property.association->notEmpty() and 
    self.boundEnd.definingEnd->notEmpty() and
    self.base_Property.association.navigableOwnedEnd->includes(self.boundEnd.definingEnd)
    
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Typo in AdjunctProperty Constraint#10

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

    The constraint#10 of AdjunctProperty is specified by the following sentence, which does not make sense:

    Properties with AdjunctProperty applied that have a Variable or Parameter applied shall have a lower multiplicity the same as or lower than the lower multiplicity of the Variable or Parameter, and an upper multiplicity the same as or higher than the upper multiplicity of the Variable or Parameter.

    In addition the statement could be simplified since this should be extended to any AdjunctProperty for which the principal is a kind of MultiplicityElement

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:35 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix constraint#10

    Reword as proposed, as part of SYSML16-274:
    Properties with AdjunctProperty applied that have a Variable or Parameter as principal shall have a lower multiplicity the same as or lower than the lower multiplicity of their principal, and an upper multiplicity the same as or higher than the upper multiplicity of their principal.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Block, Constraint [4]: Block-typed properties must be defined by an association is superfluous

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

    Constraint [4] of a Block says:

    [4] In the UML metamodel on which SysML is built, a Property that is typed by a block must be defined as an end of an association.
    (An inverse end of this association, whether owned by another block or the association itself, must always be
    present so there is always a metamodel element to record the inverse multiplicity of the reference.)

    The referenced constraint in the UML metamodel does not exist. The UML specification says:

    A useful convention for general modeling scenarios is that a Property whose type is a kind of Class is an Association end, while a property whose type is a kind of DataType is not. This convention is not enforced by UML.

    I propose to remove the constraint [4], i.e. to allow to model part properties without an association. The reduces the number of model elements (1 property versus 2 properties + 1 association), makes the model simpler for the model builder and user, and reduces the effort for model maintenance.

    In particular it is valuable when using generalization and redefinition. Without an association an inherited property could simply be redefined. An inherited property defined by an association that should be redefined, requires to create a new association that specializes the association and lots of redefinitions. That makes modeling very cumbersome.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:41 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove constraint [4] from the Block stereotype: Block-typed properties must be defined by an association

    There is no justification for the constraint [4]. Without the constraint is still allowed to define those properties by an association, but it is not mandatory.

    [4] In the UML metamodel on which SysML is built, a Property that is typed by a block must [sic] be defined as an end of an association. (An inverse end of this association, whether owned by another block or the association itself, must always be present so there is always a metamodel element to record the inverse multiplicity of the reference.)

    Removing Block constraint [4] enables more efficient implementation of applications that don't depend much on graphics, but have very large numbers of associated blocks, possibly importing from other systems.

    However, in order to avoid any ambiguity, the association-like notation which was not used so far in SysML because of this constraint#4 (see SYSML16-314) need to be explicitly excluded from SysML.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT
  • Attachments:

Update SysML references to UML model library StandardProfileL2

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19123
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The UML model library "StandardProfileL2" is called "StandardProfile" since UML 2.5. The new library also include the StandardProfileL3 library.

    Update the references in the SysML specification (chapter 4.2, 5.1.1, 17) and check whether SysML should also include the StandardProfileL3 stereotypes that are now part of the StandardProfile library.

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    SysML references to UML StandardProfile

    The references to the UML StandardProfile were already fixed with SysML 1.4.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Constraint [5] should include specializations of Requirement

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18410
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PTC ( Phillip Astle)
  • Summary:

    Constraint [5] states:

    "A nested classifier of a class stereotyped by «requirement» must also be stereotyped by «requirement»."

    This would seem to stop Requirements from owning Classes stereotyped by specializations of Requirements (for example, ExtendedRequirement from D.2.2 Stereotypes), which seems too limiting. I'd suggest this is reworded to:

    "A nested classifier of a class stereotyped by «requirement» must also be stereotyped by «requirement» or one of its specializations"

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Tue, 5 Feb 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix constraint#5

    Fix constraint#5 as suggested, as part of SYSML16-274
    revised text:
    A nested classifier of a class stereotyped by Requirement or one of its specializations shall also be stereotyped by Requirement or one of its specializations

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

remove figure numbers from diagram frames

  • Key: SYSML16-92
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17423
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Deere & Company ( Roger Burkhart)
  • Summary:

    Remove figure numbers where they still exist within the SysML diagram frame tab. As content is reshuffled in the document, figure numbers inside the diagrams can become out-of-sync with the figure numbers in the document, as is currently the case for figures C.35 and C.37. Maintain the figure number only in the figure caption, not redundantly within the diagram itself.

    Diagrams that include figure numbers in the diagram frame tab include 4.2, 4.3, 17.5, C.35, C.36, and C.37.

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove figure numbers from diagram names

    Some figure numbers in diagram names are still there in SysML 1.5, and they are out-of-sync with the numbering in the document.

    To decouple them we remove all numberings from the diagrams as proposed.

    The following mentioned figures are already fixed in SysML 1.5:
    Figure 4.2., Figure 4.3

    Figure C.35 is D.38, and C.36 is D.39 in SysML 1.5

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Issue on Block constraint#4

  • Key: SYSML16-80
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16726
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    In SysML v1.3, §8.3.2.2 Blocks, the constraint #4 states:

    [4]In the UML metamodel on which SysML is built, a Property that is typed by a block must be defined as an end of an association. (An inverse end of this association, whether owned by another block or the association itself, must always be present so there is always a metamodel element to record the inverse multiplicity of the reference.)”

    No such constraint exists in the UML specification which conversely says the following (UML v2.4, §7.3.45):

    “A property related to a classifier by ownedAttribute represents an attribute, and it may also represent an association end. It relates an instance of the class to a value or collection of values of the type of the attribute”

    The SysML Block constraint #4 has no clear justification and should be removed.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Same as SYSML16-154

    Duplicate SYSML16-154

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Problems with property-specific types

  • Key: SYSML16-76
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16636
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Deere & Company ( Roger Burkhart)
  • Summary:

    Definition of a property-specific type cannot be shown on a bdd. This would require, at least, a defined name for the block or value type that types the property, such as one based on the property name.

    No runtime semantics is given. Presumably all instances of a property-specific type are values of the property it types, but this isn't said anywhere. It the property it types is an end of an association, this could be expressed by a lower multiplicity greater than zero on opposite end.

    No examples of property specific types are given.

    CB, 2018-05-03: Address interaction with property subsetting/redefinition. For example redefinition that doesn't change the PST will cause it to be owned twice, because is repeated in the redefining property.

    The requirements for property-specific types to be anonymous, singly generalized, and owned by the owner of the property they type don't appear to be necessary. Naming is useful for managing PSTs, multiple generalization is useful for reusing property defaults and other characteristics on multiple PSTs, and package ownership enables the same PST to be used on multiple properties that have the same type.

    The description of the property-specific types refers to:

    "local specializations of referenced typed" (Section 8.3.1.1 Block Definition Diagram) and

    "starting classifier of the property-specific type." (Section 8.3.2.7 PropertySpecificType)

    The terms "local", "referenced type", "starting classifier nof the property specific type" are undefined and not deducible from other text.

    The following sentence is a tautology (ie, adds nothing to the spec):

    "The PropertySpecificType stereotype is automatically applied to the "classifier that types a property with a propertyspecific type. (Section "8.3.2.7 PropertySpecificType)"

    because a property with a property specific type is one where the property type has the PropertySpecificType applied.

    Section 8.3.1.1 (Block Definition Diagram) at the end says the name of the property specific type can be included in brackets, but constraint [2] of PropertySpecificType says they are anonymous.

    The discussion of compartments on internal properties in Section 8.3.1.2 (Internal Block Diagram) can be simplified by removing the discussion of property-specific types.

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    PST clarifications, minor corrections

    The purpose of this resolution is to clarify the semantics of the PropertySpecificType stereotype and to fix minor issues with its current description

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT
  • Attachments:

Nested diagrams in SysML

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

    Are nested diagrams allowed in SysML?

    I could not find any description that it is allowed. However, figure E.31 shows an example of nested diagrams: a parametric diagram is shown in a block definition diagram.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:02 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Nested diagrams are not allowed

    Either the UML specification nor the SysML specification says something about nested diagrams. Although it could be a useful feature, it is currently not allowed.

    Figure E.31 has two nested diagrams. The diagram in the upper right corner shows a subset of the other nested diagram and could be removed.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Binding connectors have no keyword syntax in parametric diagrams

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

    According to table 10.2. a binding connector in a parametric diagram is depicted as a solid line without a keyword.

    Figure E.31 shows a binding connector in a parametric diagram with keyword <<equal>>.

    I propose to remove the keyword in figure E.31 and to add a section below 10.3.1.2 Parametric Diagram to say that the binding connector keyword is not shown in parametric diagrams.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 09:33 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify that binding connectors are depicted without keyword in parametric diagrams

    The diagram elements table for internal block diagrams defines a keyword <<equal>> for binding connectors. The diagram elements table for parametric diagrams defines the notation without a keyword. However, the appendix shows an example of a parametric diagram with a binding connector and keyword <<equal>>.

    Although it is unusual, it is allowed to have both - normal and binding connectors - in a parametric diagram. The binding connector keyword is important to distinguish the connector kinds.

    The diagram elements table 10.2 should depict the binding connector keyword. There is no need to update parametric diagram examples in the specification document, because it is still allowed to discard the keyword (see diagram table of binding connector).

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Equal sign for binding connector

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

    Would be useful to siupport an equal sign (=) for binding connectors. The current keyword is fine, but not very compact.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 14 Dec 2017 16:35 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate of SYSML16-389

    SYSML16-389 also asks for the equal sign and has a proposal.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Allow a Requirement to be contained on Any Diagram

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Lockheed Martin ( Laura Hart)
  • Summary:

    Strict implementation of a Requirement, which is based on a Class, restricts the expected usage of a requirement on diagrams that do not allow the visualization of a class. Not all tools enforce this, but those that do (MD), restrict the desired approaches to addressing requirements traceability and communication.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 7 Dec 2017 00:44 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    SysML has no strict constraints about diagram content

    Section "16.3.1.4 Requirements on Other Diagrams" says "Requirements can also be represented on other diagrams to show their relationship to other model elements." If a tool enforces the usage of requirements on a diagram, it is a tool issue.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

The association-like notation is ambiguous

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

    In our discussion about SYSML16-308, Conrad Bock pointed out that the association-like notation provided by UML is ambiguous.

    See below:

    In the figure below the "size" attribute is not part of an association this is only an "association-like" notation that UML allows. The point is that there in no multiplicity and the opposite side because there is no corresponding role. By the way, multiplicity on this opposite side is not constrained (i.e. it is "0..*") while with a "true" association, multiplicities that are not shown are often interpreted by some reader to be "1..1" (even if the UML specification explicitly say that: "If no multiplicity is shown on the diagram, no conclusion may be drawn about the multiplicity in the model")

    In order to fix this we can either:

    • propose a better notation
    • deprecate this notation
  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Mon, 10 Jul 2017 07:17 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merge with SYSML16-154

    It makes sense to merge this issue with SYSML16-154 (about Block constraint#4) in order to provide a consistent resolution.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT
  • Attachments:

Typo in xmi file for orderedMember

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

    There is a typo in the xmi file for ElementGroup orderedMember

    See http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/20150709/SysML.xmi
    <ownedAttribute
    xmi:id="SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_ElementGroup_ownedAttribute.orderedMemeber" xmi:uuid="org.omg.sysml.SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_ElementGroup_ownedAttribute.orderedMemeber" xmi:type="uml:Property">
    <name>orderedMemeber</name>
    <isOrdered>true</isOrdered>
    <lowerValue
    xmi:id="SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_ElementGroup_ownedAttribute.orderedMemeber_lowerValue" xmi:uuid="org.omg.sysml.SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_ElementGroup_ownedAttribute.orderedMemeber_lowerValue" xmi:type="uml:LiteralInteger">
    </lowerValue>
    <upperValue
    xmi:id="SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_ElementGroup_ownedAttribute.orderedMemeber_upperValue" xmi:uuid="org.omg.sysml.SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_ElementGroup_ownedAttribute.orderedMemeber_upperValue" xmi:type="uml:LiteralUnlimitedNatural">
    <value>*</value>
    </upperValue>
    <type href="http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/20131001/UML.xmi#Element"/>
    <subsettedProperty xmi:idref="SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_ElementGroup_ownedAttribute.member"/>
    </ownedAttribute>

    Task replace orderedMemeber by orderedMember to be compliant with the pdf norm.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:39 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix the typo in the source model

    Fix the typo in the source model so that the SysML::ElementGroup::orderedMember feature is correctly spelled.

    Note that, as a consequence, its xmi:id will change as well.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Cannot navigate and represent deep nested defining feature in a slot

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

    As discussed in the RTF plenary on Sep 12 2016 the ability to
    navigate and represent deep nested defining feature not directly owned in the classifier of that instance would largely simplify the construction of instances specification trees.

    Consensus was reached in the plenary.

    There is a potential problem with UML which says that slot defining feature is a feature of that classifier.
    Michael Chonoles volunteered to work on this on the UML RTF side.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:44 GMT
  • Disposition: Transfered — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Transfer to UML: Slot defining feature

    The core of the problem has its origin in the UML specification.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

<> should be a reference (dashed box)

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

    In figure 9.9, the <<participant>> ends are in solid boxes. This appears to be incorrect. Please check the surrounding association class ibd's for similar problems

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 9 Dec 2014 23:08 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    ParticipantProperty boxes have dashed lines

    Constraint [3] of ParticipantProperty says:

    [3]The aggregation of a property stereotyped by ParticipantProperty shall be none.

    Table 8.2 clearly depicts that ParticipantProperty boxes have dashed lines.

    There are more examples for this wrong notation in the specification:
    table 9.1, table 9.2, figure 9.9, figure 9.14, figure 9.16

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Lightweight representations of faults, failures, hazards and off-nominal conditions and behavior

  • Key: SYSML16-79
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16657
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Sanford Friedenthal)
  • Summary:

    There is a critical need to model off nominal conditions and behavior associated with faults, failures, and hazards. However, there currently is no standard way to represent this in the SysML model. This issue is intended to provide some lightweight and standardized and light-weight capability for this type of modeling, such as a trigger on a state machine with the stereotype failure or a fault stereotype to represent a fault condition. There is a separate profile (not standardized) that was developed by Bruce Powell Douglass that provides a broader more comprehensive capability that could be leveraged as source material.

  • Reported: SysML 1.2 — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Out of scope

    Architecture of SysML20 will address if libraries will be a concept supported by it.
    Such a library/profile is a perfect candidate for SysML20.
    Although closer to Systems Engineering, it might also be a candidate for UML.

    Trace it to SysML20.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Parsing Text in Requirements

  • Key: SYSML16-40
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13939
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Sanford Friedenthal)
  • Summary:

    Parsing Text in Requirements: There is a need to parse the text string in a SysML requirement and create a reference from the parsed text to other model elements or perhaps to a URI. This will enable one to associated additional meaning to selected portions of the text string, such as a particular value, property name, function, or some other feature. A parsed text string which can refer to other elements could be generalized to support other uses within SysML where text is used. In this sense, the proposal could treat this in another chapter such as model elements to make it more generally applicable. One possible approach is to consider a net type called "ParsedText" that has some structure to it, so that the text can be parsed and a reference can be made from the parsed text. The Requirements text property would then be typed by ParsedText instead of String as it currently is.

  • Reported: SysML 1.1 — Wed, 27 May 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate of SYSML16-34

    Duplicate of SYSML16-34, out of scope

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Inability to represent dependent, independent parameters on constraint properties

  • Key: SYSML16-38
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13348
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Sanford Friedenthal)
  • Summary:

    Parametrics provide a powerful capability for representing constraints on properties. However, they currently do not allow a modeler to specify or notate dependent and independent parameters on a usage of a constraint property. This will enable the modeler to better express the nature of the constraint in many usage situations. The recommendation is to stereotype constraint parameters so that they can be designated as in, out, or in-out if desired. They can also be left unspecified as they are in the current parametric diagram. Proposed Solution. Add a stereotype called constraint parameter that extends property, with a stereotype property that can be in, out, in-out, or unspecified. Consider including the desctiption in the diagram extension for the parametric diagram in 10.3.1.2, adding the stereotype in 10.3.2, the diagram elements in Table 10.2, and updating the usage example in Fig 10.3.

  • Reported: SysML 1.1 — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    To be traced to SysML20

    More a natural evolution of the language, adding new features. Therefore out of scope for RTF.
    Needs to be traced to SysML20 and addressed there.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Requirement constants should be integrated into Model-centric vision of SysmL

  • Key: SYSML16-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13259
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    SysML requirements are now pure text and not completely integrated in to
    the model-centric approach

    Currenltly requirements are written as

    The top speed of this car shall be greater than 100 mph.

    Instead, it should be written as

    The top speed of this car shall be greater than <x>.

    And there be a compartment of the requirement where the current value of
    <x> is given

    <x> = 200mph.

    This <x> should be integrated as a design value throughout SysmL and
    should be connectable to parmetrics. It should also support dependencies
    so that other requirements value's (and block's features) can be
    dependent on the value of <x>. Then I can determine all the places in my
    system where there is a dependency on <x> and my equations and
    constraints are automatically updated. Which in many cases would allow
    me to automatically rerun my simulations.

    This is an improvement in integrating the model. Currently, with pure
    text requirements constants in the requirements are often repeated in
    equations, parametrics, constraints, algorithms. This repeating defeats
    some of the advantages of model-approach, as they are identical or
    related elements that need to be synchronized by hand.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Needs to be traced to SysML20.

    MARTE currently allows to define variables in text using $ sign.

    Needs to be traced to SysML20.
    Out of scope for RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Section: 8/8.3.2 Inability to efficiently capture datasets

  • Key: SYSML16-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13219
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Sanford Friedenthal)
  • Summary:

    There is currently limited ability to capture datasets for selected property values. A simple example is the difficulty in capturing the time histories for the position, velocity, and acceleration properties for two different instances of a vehicle, where the vehicle is a block, and the position, velocity, and acceleration are value properties of vehicle. Another example is the need to capture data such as environmental loads data (e.g. temperature, vibration as a function of freq) which is referenced as part of a requirement.

  • Reported: SysML 1.1 — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    *new feature *

    to be transferred to SysML v2

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Provide support to capture engineering quantities and support intricate calculations

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

    There is no SysML 1.6 RTF jira project yet, so I submit here.
    There is the need to capture engineering quantities and support intricate calculations than the base SysML semantics do.
    it might be worth formulating to SysML 1.6 to get initial capability while refining the approach for SysML 2.
    The attached proposal has been worked out with Bjorn Cole during OMG meetings.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 30 Dec 2016 19:07 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Out of scope for SysML RTF

    This is partially already addressed by MARTE.
    Decide how to address it in MARTE2 and SysML20 and find agreement among them how to handle this features in uipcoming meetings. Also relevant for Precise Semantics of Time WG,
    Trace it to those three.

    Out of scope for SysML RTF.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT
  • Attachments:

Binding connectors in internal block diagrams must always show the keyword

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

    According to table 8.4 it is allowed to show a binding connector without keyword <<equal>>. In that case it is identical with the normal Connector and makes the diagram ambiguous. The keyword should be mandatory.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 09:47 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Make keyword notation for binding connectors in internal block diagrams mandatory

    Binding connectors without a keyword in internal block diagrams could not be distinguished from normal Connectors. The keyword must be mandatory to avoid ambiguity.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

View constraint#3 is incorrect

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

    the constraint#3 of the SysML::View stereotype states the following:

    The derived values of the stakeholder attribute shall be the names of the classifiers stereotyped by Stakeholder that are [...]

    However the View::stakeholder attribute is typed by SysML::Stakeolder[*] and not by String, as in SysML versions before 1.4. We probably missed it in 1.4.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 3 Aug 2017 09:06 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix the text of the constraint

    Modify the constraint statement so that it refers to element of the right type

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

References to UML specification in block constraints are not correct

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

    The Block constraint [5] quotes the UML specification. The reference to UML specification section 9.3.6 is not correct. The correct chapter number is 11.8.

    The block constraint [9] quotes the UML specification. The reference to UML specification section 9.3.7 is not correct. The correct chapter number is 11.8.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Tue, 6 Jun 2017 08:15 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Correct the references to the UML specification in block constraints [5] and [9]

    see issue description SYSML16-303

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Remove sentences about qualified associations in clause 8.3.1.3

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

    Remove the sentences

    "Qualified associations, shown in SysML by an open box at the end of an association path with a property name inside, are
    a specialized feature of UML that specifies how a property value can represent an identifier of an associated target. This
    capability, while useful for data modeling, does not seem essential to accomplish any of the SysML requirements for
    support of systems engineering."

    These sentences are partly incorrect (qualified associations are not shown in SysML), cover only an opinion, and could easily lead to misunderstandings. On the other side it only adds a minimal value.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Tue, 6 Jun 2017 08:02 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove sentences about qualified associations from 8.3.1.3

    see issue description SYSML16-300

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Remove the statement about N-ary associations from 8.3.1.3

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

    Remove the sentence "N-ary associations, shown in UML by a
    large open diamond with multiple branches, can be modeled by an intermediate block with no loss in expressive power." from the specification.

    N-ary associations are still excluded by the second sentence in the clause. The sentence to be removed added a motivation for the exclusion, but the statement "with no loss in expressive power" is not correct.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Tue, 6 Jun 2017 07:52 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove the statement about N-ary associations

    see issue description SYSML16-299

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Constant Block Value Properties

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

    It would be very useful to have the ability to distinguish between value properties that are constants and those that are situational/dynamic. This may be more a case of allowing block property values to be declared as constants (or constraint values) – perhaps because they formalise values stated in requirements. Whereas the remaining block property values are derived from evaluation of the parametric constraints.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:18 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Constant Block value properties

    A constant block value property is modeled by defining a default value and setting isReadOnly to true.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Flow property description: incorrect wording (§9.3.2.7)

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18907
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    The description of the semantics related to the direction (in, ou, inout) incorrectly refers to contained “blocks” instead of properties and the description for “inout” is inconsistent (cannot be instantiated )

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify the description of FlowProperty direction

    The current description use the term of "block" incorrectly which lead in sentences which do not make sense when attempting to deal with nested port and multiple-level structures.

    We need to make a clear distinction between a block, which defines characteristics of a type, and an instance which may hold and exchanges values, as specified by a type that classify it.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Binding Connector should not be typed

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

    The Specification says

    A Binding Connector is a connector which specifies that the properties at both ends of the connector have equal values.

    What would be the meaning of an Association used as a type for this Connector? I fail to see one. Should there be a Constraint, that doesn't allow a type for a Binding Connector?

    Suggestion
    Add following Constraint to the Binding Connector definition
    inv: type = null

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 26 Feb 2016 17:33 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarification of binding connector

    see SYSML16-319

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Allow the equal symbol, =, without guillemets as an alternative diagram notation for SysML binding connectors

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18758
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Nicolas Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Table 8.4 in SysML 1.3 defines the notation for a SysML BindingConnector in terms of an "<<equal>>" keyword. This notation is very expensive in terms of diagram footprint.
    Without displaying the "<<equal>>" keyword, SysML BindingConnectors become visually indistinguishable from bidirectional SysML assembly connectors.

    Suggest providing an alternate notation for SysML BindingConnectors in Table 8.4 based on an elegant solution that some SysML tools and SysML RTF members already use, that is, a single "=" symbol without the keyword guillemets, that is, "=", not "<<=>>".

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 5 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate of SYSML16-389

    The issue is a duplicate of SYSML16-389

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

View and Viewpoint Limitations in support of auto-view generation

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18391
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Sanford Friedenthal)
  • Summary:

    An important capability of a model based approach is the ability to automatically generate Views of the information from the model to support specific stakeholder Viewpoints. These Views may include the presentation of the modeling information in multiple forms such as diagrams, tables, or entire documents captured in different formats (e.g., MS Word, html, ppt, video). The View and Viewpoint constructs in SysML were included to aid in the automatic generation of Views, by enabling the specification of the View information and its presentation to address the stakeholder concerns. The View generation is generally implemented by other rendering applications.

    At the SE DSIG meeting on June 18, 2012 in Cambridge, several individuals presented and demonstrated common practices for View generation from a model that are providing value to end users. The presentations are available from the Cambridge SE DSIG meeting page. The practices required the users and vendors to further extend View and Viewpoint in different ways to overcome inherent limitations in order to leverage their respective View generation capabilities. The lack of a standard approach limits interchange and requires that each user and vendor include their unique extensions.
    The specific limitations of View and Viewpoint are described below. For background, the Viewpoint and View descriptions in the SysML specification v1.3 currently read as follows:
    Viewpoint: 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.
    View: A View is a representation of a whole system or subsystem from the perspective of a single viewpoint. Views are allowed to import other elements including other packages and other views that conform to the viewpoint.
    Based on the above descriptions, the Viewpoint specifies how to construct a View, and the View is a representation that conforms to this specification.
    Some of the limitations that have been identified include the following:
    a) Viewpoint method limitations. The current Viewpoint contains a property called method that is typed by a text string (methods:String[*]). In order to auto-generate Views, the Viewpoint should include provisions to more formally specify ‘the conventions and rules for constructing and using a view’. This may include specifying executable methods to query the model that extract the desired information from the model, and present the information to the stakeholders. Viewpoint methods must be capable of specifying the scope of the information to be rendered, how the information should be rendered, as well as other methods related to checking, validating, or otherwise analyzing the information. The scope of the information may include information from other data sources not contained directly in the model. (Note: Standard methods may be captured in a method library that specify how to query, transform, analyze, present, and render data.)
    The viewpoint method does not include provisions for specifying the language for the methods. Adding the ability to designate the language would clarify viewpoint.
    b) Viewpoint description limitations. The current viewpoint description should be clarified to note that it should specify the presentation of the information as well as the information itself. This may require additional viewpoint properties to enable the specification of the form and format of the information. The form of the data in this context refers to how the information is presented such as data values that are in tabular form or a plot. The format of the data in this context refers to the file format that is used for the rendering application.
    c) View import limitations. The current View description says “Views are allowed to import other elements including other packages and other Views that conform to the Viewpoint”. View also includes a constraint that ‘A view can only own element import, package import, comment and constraint elements’. This concept of importing model elements into a package is not a sufficient means for constructing Views. The relationship between the view and the model elements should reflect the concept that the View can be constructed by defining operations to query models and other sources of data, and perform other operations on the information to present it in a form that is useful to the stakeholders.
    d) Other view construction limitations. A View conforming to a Viewpoint may be constructed from different sets of information that may be rendered as an entire document, a part of a document, a set of powerpoint slides or an individual slide, a video or series of videos, or other form. A typical example may be a security View that represents security requirements, design, and verification information. This requires the View to be constructed from sub-views, and that these sub-views must be ordered in a particular way to present to the user. An example would be the ordering of sections in a document, where each section represents a subview which in-turn represents selected information.
    A current limitation is the inability to express the ordering and general organization of the View and corresponding subviews that comprise the View (Note: this is a structural ordering and not a temporal ordering). Some of the current approaches have addressed this limitation by including a dependency relationship between the subviews. The relationships can express a precedence relationship (i.e.., next) and a decomposition relationship (i.e., first). A simple example of how these relationships are used to construct a View that is presented to the stakeholder as a document is described below.
    In a simple example, different subviews may correspond to different sections of a document that comprise the View. For example, some text with a table of information from one part of the model may appear in Section 1, and some other text with a diagram that represents other model information may appear in Section 2. Each section of the document may require different viewpoints to specify the query and presentation. There is currently no way to describe that a View that conforms to a Viewpoint contains multiple subviews with the relationships as indicated in the figure. There is a need to create a View that contains subviews that are related to one another with the types of relationships indicated (e.g., first, next). (Note: It is anticipated that the View and subviews should be reusable, and may require additional metadata ).
    In this example, each section of the document corresponds to a particular subview. However, we do not want to restrict a subview so that the information cannot be distributed across multiple sections of a document, or across multiple documents.
    e) Reuse of view and viewpoint. There needs to be sufficient expression to construct reusable definitions of view and viewpoint. These mechanisms may include composition, specialization, model libraries, and others.
    f) Viewpoint property limitations. Some of the Viewpoint properties, such as stakeholder, concern, and modeling language are currently typed as text strings, and may be better represented by other types. For cases where these elements are common among different viewpoints, there is no way to model these elements or the relationships between them. In a large-scale model, this becomes very difficult to scale. In particular, it is difficult to reuse the model elements such as stakeholder across different viewpoints, and it is difficult to perform automated checking of the viewpoints based on these viewpoint properties. The viewpoint properties should be typed by model elements that enable this reuse and checking.
    g) Other View and Viewpoint Mechanisms. There may be additional ways to create views more directly in the model. For example, a view may correspond to a filtered subset of a set of parts on an ibd corresponding that are based on some criteria (e.g., all electrical parts). This is similar to issue 13928 called the partition construct (later referred to as element group).

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    View and Viewpoint for auto-view generation

    The View and Viewpoint elements were changed with SysML 1.4 to address the points mentioned in the issue.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Is <> keyword (or stereotype) on binding connectors is part of SysML notation?

  • Key: SYSML16-90
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17373
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Is <<equal>> keyword (or stereotype) on binding connectors is part of SysML notation? Figure 9.7 Usage example of proxy and full ports

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 17 May 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merge with: "Change keyword of binding connector from "equal" to "=""

    see discussion in comment section

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Section: Generalization of stereotyped elements

  • Key: SYSML16-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12255
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The generalization of model elements, e.g. blocks, does only affect the instances (from Generalization definition: Each instance of the specific classifier is also an indirect instance of the general classifier.). Doesn't that mean that stereotypes of a block and it's properties are not inherited by sub-blocks? If yes all informations about flow ports, units and so on get lost. They are not inherited by the sub-blocks.

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Sun, 2 Mar 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Generalization of stereotyped elements

    Comment from Conrad Bock:

    Inheritance doesn't mean features appear on specializations, it just means instances of those specialization support those features. This means stereotyped features are still stereotyped after "inheritance", because nothing actually happens in the model due to inheritance. Tools show inherited features for convenience. Redefinition does change the model in specializations, and as I understand it, redefining features (in specializations) need to have stereotype reapplied unfortunately. Same for subsetting features.

    Discussed during RTF meeting and decided to closed; no change.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML stereotype constraints should be named rather than numbered

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

    In the current SysML specification, every constraint defined as part of a stereotype is identified by a number.

    However the ownedRule property is not ordered. So this numbering does not make sense. Using meaningful names for all those constraints - just like UML does - would be more appropriate.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:28 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    To be merged with the formalization of SysML constraints (SYSML16-274)

    To be merged with the formalization of SysML constraint which includes adding them explicitly in the model of the SysML profile: a meaningful name will be proposed for each of those constraints.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Compartment headers are missing in figure 8.10 and 8.11

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

    The figure 8.10 shows a compartment of the value type Complex without a compartment header. According to table 8.1, it should be labelled with "properties".

    Figure 8.11 shows two blocks with a unlabelled compartment. Add the compartment header "values".

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:56 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add compartment header

    Compartment should have a header like defined in table 8.1.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Incorrect diagram header in figure 8.11

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

    The diagram header should show the model element type and name.

    bdd [modelLibrary] UnitAndQuantityKind [Unit and QuantityKind library]

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:46 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Update diagram header of figure 8.11

    The diagram header should show the model element type and name.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

EndPathMultiplicity constraint#2 uses a wrong name to refer to a stereotype property

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

    EndPathMultiplicity constraint#2 states:

    {quotes}
    endPathLower shall be non-negative{quotes}

    However, there is no such property defined for the EndPathMultiplicity stereotype. Obviously, the intent is to constrain EndPathMultiplicity::lower

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:36 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    To be merged with the formalization of SysML constraints (SYSML16-274)

    To be merged with the formalization of SysML constraint which includes adding them explicitly in the model of the SysML profile

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

UnitAndQuantityKind figure missing block keyword

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

    In Figure 8.11 (Model library for Unit and QuantityKind), Unit and QuantityKind are blocks (at least according to the XMI), but they don't
    have the block keyword showing.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Fri, 18 Aug 2017 18:31 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    *Add the block keyword to Unit and QuantityKind *

    According to section 8.3.1.1.2 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.

    However, it is a good style to be very clear in a specification and the figure will be updated anyway (see SYSML16-334).

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

AdjunctProperty constraint#8 can be simplified

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

    AdjunctProperty constraint#8 is partly redundant with constraint#3 since both require that the Property on which this stereotype is applied has a composite aggregation when the principal is typed by a CallAction.

    Constraint#8 could be simplified by not requiring it again and by focusing on the type of AdjunctProperties that have CallActions as principals. Also, it should be reworded to avoid using parenthesis.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 3 Aug 2017 13:45 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML16-274

    Merged with SYSML16-311 in order to provide one unique, global and consistent resolution for all the issues about constraints defined for SysML stereotypes, as far as possible.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

ParticipantProperty keyword

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    SysML spec says:
    The keyword «participant» before a property name indicates the property is stereotyped by ParticipantProperty.

    Why and how SysML can redefine how stereotype is represented?
    According the UML spec, stereotype is represented by showing its original name in <<>>.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:32 GMT
  • Disposition: Transfered — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    ParticipantProperty keyword

    Considering the pattern has been broken upstream, defer to UML.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML::Block constraint#3 containts an incorrect assertion about UML

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

    SysML::Block constraint#3 states the following


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

    However there is no constraint in UML requiring that ends owned by the association have empty names. SysML can possibly require it but the added value is not obvious. I suggest focusing this constraint on the link between navigability and end ownership:

    Any instance of the Property metaclass that is typed by a block (a Class with the «block» stereotype applied) and which is owned by an Association may not be defined as a navigable owned end of the association.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 6 Jul 2017 11:49 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    To be merged with the formalization of SysML constraints (SYSML16-274)

    To be merged with the formalization of SysML constraint which includes adding them explicitly in the model of the SysML profile

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Remove [sic] in block constraints

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

    Remove the string "[sic] " in the constraints on Block.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Mon, 5 Jun 2017 11:22 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove [sic] statements in block constraints

    see issue SYSML16-295

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Behavior Diagram Element tables imply diagrams can be nodes

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

    Filed for JD.
    The Diagram Element tables for the behavior chapters are captioned:
    "Graphical nodes included in <behavior> diagrams"
    and each have a row for an entire diagram, rather than just elements of the diagrams. This implies diagrams can be nodes in other diagrams, for example that an activity diagram can be in another activity diagram without an intervening call behavior action, which isn't true.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:55 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Behavior Diagram Element tables imply diagrams can be nodes

    Duplicated by:
    http://issues.omg.org/browse/SYSML16-202, which was merged into 236.

    Node Name -> Notation Name

    Activity -> ActivityDiagram Frame and Heading, keep only heading and frame in example (remove nodes)
    SequenceDiagram -> SequenceDiagram Frame and Heading
    StateMachineDiagram -> StateMachineDiagram Frame and Heading

    Graphical nodes included in <diagramKind> diagrams -> Graphical notation of <diagramKind> diagrams

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Incorrect statement about UML n-aries

  • Key: SYSML16-69
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16093
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Section 8.3.1.3 (UML Diagram Elements
    not Included in SysML Block Definition
    Diagrams) says "N-ary associations,
    shown in UML by a large open diamond
    with multiple branches, can be modeled
    by an intermediate block with no loss in
    expressive power." An intermediate
    block cannot capture multiplicities that
    would be on an the ends of an n-ary
    association. These multiplicities are
    for the links from end to end, rather
    than from intermediate object to end, as
    they would be with an intermediate
    object. However, intermediate blocks
    can specify the number of links each end
    might participate in for any of the
    other n-1 ends, which is not possible
    with n-ary associations. The
    expressiveness of n-aries and
    intermediate blocks is overlapping,
    rather than equivalent.

  • Reported: SysML 1.2 — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorrect statements about N-ary associations removed

    The incorrect statements are removed by the resolution of issue SYSML16-299.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Compartment labelling rules

  • Key: SYSML16-67
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16057
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Deere & Company ( Roger Burkhart)
  • Summary:

    Suggest these compartment rules:

    • Italics
    • Plural
    • All lower case
    • Words separated by spaces
  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add general notation rules for compartment headers

    Add general notation rules for compartment headers

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Need to have an explicit way to bind flow properties or atomic flow ports to block properties

  • Key: SYSML16-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14059
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Eldad Palachi)
  • Summary:

    Need to have an explicit way to bind flow properties or atomic flow ports to block properties. Currently section 9.3.2.3 lacks such rules. Such rules would allow a consistent way to relay data via flow ports to the properties of blocks and also would allow a convenient way to transmit values via flow port by changing a value of a property owned by the block.

  • Reported: SysML 1.1 — Wed, 8 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with SYSML16-50

    Can be merged with SYSML16-50

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Initial values compartment header inconsistent with others

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

    SysML compartment headers are usually all lower case with spaces separating words, but for initial values it's "initialValues". Suggest changing it to "initial values".

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 23 Sep 2016 21:38 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Addressed by general compartment labelling rules

    http://issues.omg.org/browse/SYSML16-67

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Update description about extension of UML

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

    The description on page 12 how SysML extends UML is based on UML 2.4. The package structure of UML has changed from UML 2.4 to UML 2.5. The bullet list must be updated accordingly. For instance SysML::ModelElements does not extend UML classes, but beside others UML common structures.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 17 Sep 2015 09:02 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    *Update description about extension of UML *

    The UML 2.5 spec says on p.752/E.2:
    "The metaclasses and associations in UML 2.5 are organized in a package structure that corresponds to the specification
    clause structure."
    The bullet list describes to which parts of the UML spec SysML makes extensions in an informal way.
    In the underlying model there are stereotype extensions, e.g. <<NoBuffer>> extends ObjectNode. ObjectNode appears in the clause Activities.
    The Fig 11.8 shows this extension.

    The origin of the new bullet list reflects the elements in UML 2.5 which SysML extends.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML specification document cleanups


NestedConnectorEnd violates UML "roles" constraint

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19813
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    UML's constraint "UML::Connector::role" specifies that ConnectorEnds need to point to roles/parts owned by the Connector's structuredClassifier (direct or inherited).

    The specification draft 1.0 contained an explicit statement that SysML relaxed a limited number of the UML constraints ("roles" being one of them). This was e.g. mentioned in 0.11 on page 4 of document ad/2006-03-01.

    In the current 1.4 beta, section 4.4 "Extension Mechanisms" doesn't mention contraint relaxation as one of the applied techniques.

    Moreover, the specification of NestedConnectorEnd (8.3.1.2.6, 8.3.2.11) does not mention this relaxation either.

    Without a formal statement about this relaxation, I would conclude that the SysML spec conflicts with the UML spec.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Contraint relaxed concerning nestedConnectorEnds

    This is described in SysML 1.5 so no change is required:
    8.3.2.4 Block
    [9]The following constraint under 9.3.7, “ConnectorEnd” in the UML 2 standard is removed by SysML: “[3] The property held in self.partWithPort must [sic] not be a Port.”

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

AdjunctProperty principal should be a NamedElement

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

    The specification says:

    Attributes
    • principal : Element [1]

    [2]Properties to which AdjunctProperty applied must have the same name as the principal.

    A name isn't mandatory for an UML Element.

    => principal type should be NamedElement

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 4 Aug 2016 14:25 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    AdjunctProperty principal should be a NamedElement

    Change constraint [2] to address none NamedElement,
    remove list of covered elements in attribute description because it is covered in the constraints

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

The type of ParticipantProperty

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    SysML spec says:

    The types of participant properties can be elided if desired.

    But constraints says:
    [5] A property stereotyped by ParticipantProperty must have the same type as the property referred to by the end attribute.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 21:11 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Adjust text with contraint in ParticipantProperty

    Affects: SysML Specs 1.4, 1.5
    Section: 8.3.2.13
    Reason: "Elided" can be used to describe all properties /elements in diagrams and is not specific to ParticipantProperty.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Clarify if the usage of qualified associations is allowed

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

    It seems that the SysML specification wants to exclude the usage of qualified associations. However, it only says that it does not seem to be essential to use them:

    "Qualified associations, shown in SysML by an open box at the end of an association path with a property name inside, are a specialized feature of UML that specifies how a property value can represent an identifier of an associated target. This capability, while useful for data modeling, does not seem essential to accomplish any of the SysML requirements for
    support of systems engineering." (8.3.1.3, SysML 1.5)

    It is still unclear if qualified associations are allowed or not.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5b1 — Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:35 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Explicitly exclude the usage of qualified associations

    Qualified associations are explicitly excluded by the second sentence in clause 8.3.1.3: "Notational and metamodel support for n-ary associations and qualified associations has been excluded from SysML.".

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Association arrowheads should not be forbidden

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

    The SysML specification excludes the usage of association arrowheads:

    "The use of navigation arrowheads on an association has been simplified by excluding the case of arrowheads on both ends, and requiring that such an association always be shown without arrowheads on either end." (8.3.1.3, SysML 1.5).

    However, arrowheads are commonly used in SysML modeling. There are also examples of usages in the SysML specification itself, for example, figure D.15.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5b1 — Wed, 26 Apr 2017 07:31 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Association arrowheads at both ends at the same time are forbidden

    The specification only excludes the case of arrowheads at both ends of an association at the same time. The modeling scenarios mentioned by the reporter are still possible in SysML.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML does not clearly defines how an association defines properties

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

    In section 8.3.1.3 the SysML specification excludes the dot notation of the association that shows the ownership of the defined properties.

    But the SysML specification does not specify how the ownership of properties is defined. There are different usages of the association relationship like composition in bdd, actor/use case relationship or in conceptual bdds. Different usages require different ownerships of the defined properties.

    Proposal:
    Define a default and allow the dot notation if the modeler wants to define it differently.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 5 Feb 2016 12:17 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Association end ownership is defined according to the navigability

    In SysML the ownership of association ends is fully defined according to the navigability of those ends. If the classifier (e.g. a Block) has a navigable association to another classifier it owns the end corresponding to the role played by that other classifier. If the association end is not navigable it is owned by the association itself.

    This is enforced by SysML::Block constraint#3:

    In the UML metamodel on which SysML is built, any instance of the Property metaclass that is typed by a block (a Class with the «block» stereotype applied) and which is owned by an Association must [sic] not have a name and may not be defined as a navigable owned end of the association

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Stakeholder model element not precisely defined

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

    Two notable problems with the definition of the stakeholder model element:
    1. it is defined as being an extension of the UML Classifier: It is not clear whether the intention was to define the meta-model object as a class to which the Stakeholder stereotype is attached, or for the "stakeholder" stereotype to be applied to anything in the model that is a classifier - which is a very long list of things in UML. If it was the latter then a constraint should be added to subset the set of classifiers to just those considered applicable. Class and Actor have been suggested, but this creates choice and that is a source of inconsistent modelling. The example provided for its application in viewpoint modelling (e.g. Figure D.27 SysML 1.5) shows the stakeholder with a class-like node representation. So maybe it should be implemented as a stereotyped UML class.
    2. The standard does not indicate whether or not Stakeholder model elements can be used for any other purpose beyond that of defining a stakeholder-viewpoint relationship. If a BDD allows stakeholder model elements to be shown (ordinarily it only allows Block, Activity, and comment model elements), then a basic form of stakeholder relationship modelling could be supported, which is a missing capability from SysML and one that is not possible when a modelling tool enforces all of the UML defined constraints on the actor model element kind. Other UML derived profiles appear to have a richer set of Stakeholder modelling capabilities and include a richer set of people centric modelling elements. Furthermore, a point of integration with SysML could be found if these profiles all use stereotyped UML class objects, since the SysML Stakeholder stereotype could be applied to their model element kinds and thus used for defining SysML viewpoints.
    The SysML RTF need to agree how the Stakeholder concept should be developed for SysML modelling.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:37 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    constrain applicability of stakeholder stereotype

    stakeholder stereotype extends Classifier which includes also classifiers which make not much sense, e.g. use case, association.

    There is no consensus to further restriction for the stakeholder stereotype usage.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Block constraint [4] contains a false statement

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

    Constraint#4 specified for the Block stereotype states the following:
    In the UML metamodel on which SysML is built, a Property that is typed by a block must [sic] be defined as an end of an association. (An inverse end of this association, whether owned by another block or the association itself, must always be present so there is always a metamodel element to record the inverse multiplicity of the reference.)

    However there is no such a constraint in UML metamodel. Firstly, the concept of "block" is not part of UML, and secondly there is not even an equivalent constraint for UML::Properties typed by a UML::Class. Typing a UML::StructuredClassifier::ownedAttribute with a Class is legal

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 26 Jan 2017 09:26 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicated by SYSML16-154

    http://issues.omg.org/browse/SYSML16-154

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Incorrect multiplicity for base_xxx properties of most SysML Stereotypes

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

    In the current version of SysML.xmi, all the stereotype properties referring to the element to which the stereotype is applied (the so-called "base_xxx" ones) have [0..1] multiplicities, except for the following stereotypes: FlowSpecification (deprecated), FlowPort (deprecated) and TriggerOnNestedPort.

    Basically, these multiplicities shall be [1..1] except for stereotypes that may be applied to more than one metaclass. That is for SysML: TestCase, Rate, Probability and ControlOperator

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:01 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorrect multiplicity for base_xxx properties of most SysML Stereotypes

    multiplicity is empty in 1.5 XMI which means it defaults to 1 based on MOF/XMI/UML specification. This is correct unless there is more than one base in which case it is 0..1

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Wrong parameter for Operations in the SysML.xmi

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

    In the current version of SysML.xmi, none of the operation parameter is serialized with its direction. Which means that they all have the default direction, i.e.: "in". This is of course wrong for all the return parameters. By the way, as serialized, the operations have no return parameter and so no type.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 11 Aug 2016 13:53 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Wrong parameter for Operations in the SysML.xmi

    addressed in SysML 1.5 XMI

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

RequirementRelated is present in the summary but no more in the document

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19757
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    RequirementRelated is present in the summary (16.3.2.4) but no more in the document

    => The problem put all the section 16.3.2 in disorder

    Also RequirementRelated is still present (as Deprecated) in the profile I'm working with
    (The one that will be used in eclipse-Papyrus).

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 11 May 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fixed in SysML 1.5 specification

    Fixed in SysML 1.5 specification

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Activity should not be included as graphical node included in activity diagrams

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19836
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Sparx Systems Pty Ltd ( J.D. Baker)
  • Summary:

    Table 11.1 includes a set of concrete syntax symbols that are "graphical nodes included in activity diagrams." One of these represents an Activity diagram. Activity diagrams do not include activities as one of the possible nodes in the meta-model. I suggest you remove that line of the table to make is clear that Activity Diagrams do not contain activities.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    To be merged with more general SYSML16-201

    duplicate of http://issues.omg.org/browse/SYSML16-201

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Port labels inside Port symbol

  • Key: SYSML16-87
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17251
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Port labels inside Port symbol. Is it new notation, not supported in UML? One more nightmare for tools?Where it is described?
    What information can be inside port? Name, type? How about stereotype label, tags, etc? E.g. <<full>> - should it be inside or not?

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Port notation defined in table 9.2

    Table 9.2 shows that port can be represented with compartments, based on their Type, using corresponding block notation.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Section 9.3.1.7

  • Key: SYSML16-86
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17248
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    9.3.1.7. The keyword “full” before a property name indicates the property is stereotyped by ProxyPort . Copy/paste bug? <<full>> is for FullPorts.

    What is the type of FullPort? Spec says nothing.

    What are possible owned properties of the InterfaceBlock? Values, FlowProperties? other? In 9.1 InterfaceBlock it is not flow nor value.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Issue split

    There were eventually 3 unrelated issues in this one. They need to be split:

    • The typo was fixed in v1.5
    • issue about full port is now handled by SYSML16-263
    • issue about InterfaceBlock is now handled by SYSML16-264
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

xmi:IDs are not convenient

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

    The xmi:IDs used in SysML related XMI files we publish are not convenient.
    They are too big and too sensitive to model change.

    We need to come back to something more compact and more robust

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 12 Sep 2016 13:44 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    in 1.5 the IDs have been changed to be convenient

    addressed by new algorithm to generate IDs

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML Provides Inadequate Support for Reuse of Requirements

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Rick Steiner)
  • Summary:

    SysML provides inadequate support for reuse of requirements. The «copy» relationship does not provide the flexibility necessary to support concepts like requirement archetypes and reusable requirement hierarchies.

    SysML supports reuse in other modeling areas by distinguishing the classier (definition of the concept) from the property (use of that concept in a composition context).

    • In structural modeling this is done with blocks that type part properties.
    • In parametric modeling this is done with constraint blocks that type constraint properties.
      This concept has already been extended in SysML to include activity modeling: activities (classifiers) called by call behavior actions, and depicting these called behavior actions as adjunct properties on a block definition diagram.

    In all three cases, the vehicle for reuse is a classifier that types or is called by a property of another classifier. It is appropriate to extend this approach to requirements, thus supporting requirement archetypes as classifiers, and requirements as properties of classifiers.

    • Requirement hierarchy can then follow the standard composition relationship, rather than the current containment relationship.
    • Requirements as properties are contextualized by the classifier owning them, yet inherit characteristics of the requirement archetype classifier typing them.
  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 28 May 2015 04:04 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    SysML Provides Inadequate Support for Reuse of Requirements

    This is addressed in SysML 1.5 with property based requirements by allowing Blocks for requirements.
    This allows to contextualize the requirement and therefore re-use the requirement.

    See E.8.4 An Example Property Based Requirement based on Block

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Typos in SysML 1.4

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19142
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    I’m afraid it’s too late for SysML 1.4. I’ve spotted two typos:

    · Figure 8.15: Multiplicity between Wheel and LugBolt ist 6..1

    · Figure 8.17: Right block has no name

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Fri, 13 Dec 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Typos

    There are fixed in SysML 1.4 as published

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

ParticipantProperty stereotype is redundant

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    ParticipantProperty is a property which duplicates and references an AssociationEnd. Reasoning of this duplication is not explained in the spec and creates issues for implementation and model users.

    Association ends can be represented in IBD diagram of AssociationBlock directly.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 18:30 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    ParticipantProperty stereotype is redundant

    The difference is that association end properties are for navigating from instances of one end class to
    instances of another, while participant properties are for navigating from instances of association classes to instances
    of the end classes. This covered in 8.3.2.12 ParticipantProperty.

    Association end properties can be represented in association block IBD only when they are owned by the
    association, which is only the case for non-navigable association end properties in SysML (non-navigable
    = properties that are not guaranteed to be efficiently navigable, see the paragraph above the last Note in UML
    11.5.3.1 Associations, but might be in some tools). Non-navigable association end properties can still be navigated
    from instances of one end class to instances of another, it's just not guaranteed to be efficient. In any case,
    they do not provide the same navigation as participant properties, see above.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

ISO DIS 19514 (JTC1 Comments against SysML 1.4)

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Rick Steiner)
  • Summary:

    (cross posted email from Andrew Watson)
    Yves, Rick, SysML 1.5 RTF members,

    As I'm sure you remember, OMG used its PAS status to submit SysML 1.4 to ISO/IEC JTC1 for consideration as an International Standard. The ISO
    identifier is DIS 19514, and the specification was accompanied by this
    explanatory report:

    http://doc.omg.org/pas/15-04-01

    JTC1 Members have now finished voting on the proposal, and the results are available as ptc/16-06-01:

    http://doc.omg.org/ptc/16-06-01

    As you can see, the vote passed, but because there was one "No" vote, OMG is being asked to respond with a revision of the SysML specification that addresses some or all of the reviewers' comments, also contained in the above archive.

    Because the SysML 1.5 RTF is working on revising this specification,
    creating this revision falls to you.

    The JTC1 comments will need to be filed as OMG issues, and then addressed in a SysML revision. If you only address the JTC1 comments, then I suggest we make this the SysML 1.4.1 revision, and publish it within a couple of months via the Urgent Issue process. Alternatively, you may want to roll this into the SysML 1.5 revision, along with resolutions to other SysML
    issues.

    Once you've decided which approach you want to use, please let me know so that I can tell JTC1 within what time-frame they can expect the response to its members' comments.

    One other, related issue; the SysML 1.5 RTF expires just after the Orlando
    meeting, and we still need to decide how long an extension to put on the
    Orlando agenda. 3 months? Six? Please let me know.

    Thanks,

    Andrew

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:45 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    ISO DIS 19514 (JTC1 Comments against SysML 1.4)

    resolved in 1.5

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

DeriveReqt constraints multiplicity of Client and Supplier

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

    Here are the constraints for DeriveReqt

    [1]The supplier must be an element stereotyped by «requirement» or one of «requirement» subtypes.
    [2]The client must be an element stereotyped by «requirement» or one of «requirement» subtypes.

    DeriveReqt extends Abstraction and an Abstraction can have many NamedElement as Client and Supplier.

    7.3.12 Dependency (from Dependencies)
    client: NamedElement [1..*]
    supplier: NamedElement [1..*]

    Here are some options:

    • add a constraint to restrict to 1 NamedElement in Client and Supplier
    • Stereotype required only on the first NamedElement
    • Stereotype required on all NamedElement
  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 20 May 2016 15:06 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Already constrained through trace stereotype specialization

    Already constrained because deriveReqt specializes Trace stereotype which constrains both the client and the supplier to be limited to one.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

The XMI file isn't conform to the pdf specification for Refine and Trace stereotypes

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

    The pdf is that Refine and Trace have 2 specializations but have only one generalization in the xmi file
    (http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/20150709/SysML.xmi)

    Some elements extracted from the pdf and the xmi

    16.3.2.3 Refine
    Description
    The Refine stereotype specializes UML4SysML Refine and DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath to enable refinements to
    identify their sources and targets by a multi-level path of accessible properties from context blocks for the sources and
    targets.

    <name>Refine</name>
    <generalization
    xmi:id="SysML.package_packagedElement_Requirements.stereotype_packagedElement_Refine._generalization.SysML.package_packagedElement_Blocks.stereotype_packagedElement_DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath" xmi:uuid="org.omg.sysml.SysML.package_packagedElement_Requirements.stereotype_packagedElement_Refine._generalization.SysML.package_packagedElement_Blocks.stereotype_packagedElement_DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath" xmi:type="uml:Generalization">
    <general xmi:idref="SysML.package_packagedElement_Blocks.stereotype_packagedElement_DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath"/>
    </generalization>
    <ownedAttribute ....

    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.

    <name>Trace</name>
    <generalization
    xmi:id="SysML.package_packagedElement_Requirements.stereotype_packagedElement_Trace._generalization.SysML.package_packagedElement_Blocks.stereotype_packagedElement_DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath" xmi:uuid="org.omg.sysml.SysML.package_packagedElement_Requirements.stereotype_packagedElement_Trace._generalization.SysML.package_packagedElement_Blocks.stereotype_packagedElement_DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath" xmi:type="uml:Generalization">
    <general xmi:idref="SysML.package_packagedElement_Blocks.stereotype_packagedElement_DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath"/>
    </generalization>
    <ownedAt

    For information, the bug has been raised for the Papyrus SysML implementation
    https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=497650

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 11 Jul 2016 13:16 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    The XMI file isn't conform to the pdf specification for Refine and Trace stereotypes

    Resolved in SysML 1.5

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Spec document inconsistent with Normative profile XMI file ptc/2013-12-11

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19817
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Spec document says:
    7.3.2.6 Stakeholder

    Description

    A stakeholder represents a role, group or individual who has concerns that will be addressed by the View of the model.

    Attributes

    • concernList: Comment [*]

    The interests of this stakeholder.

    • /concern: String [*]

    The interests of this stakeholder displayed as the body of the comments from concernList.


    XMI file says something completely different

    Stereotype Stakeholder
    concern: Comment [1..*]
    /concernlist : Comment

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 17 Jul 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Spec document inconsistent with Normative profile XMI file ptc/2013-12-11

    eferring to http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/20150709/SysML.xmi it is consistent with the spec:
    xmi:id="SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_Stakeholder_ownedAttribute.concern" xmi:uuid="org.omg.sysml.SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_Stakeholder_ownedAttribute.concern" xmi:type="uml:Property">
    <name>concern</name>
    <isDerived>true</isDerived>
    <type href="http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/20131001/PrimitiveTypes.xmi#String"/>

    <name>concernList</name>
    <type href="http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/20131001/UML.xmi#Comment"/>

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

BNF definitions have literals/terminals in italics, which seems to imply that the occurrences of these strings should be in italics, but they are not.

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

    This is probably occurs in many cases, but as an example, see page 40 section 8.3.

    <param -prop> ::= ‘ordered’ | ‘unordered’ | ‘unique’ | ‘nonunique’ | ‘seq’ | ‘sequence’

    This statement states the the literal "ordered" (and the rest of the list) should be in italics when used on diagrams throughout the spec It is not

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:38 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    BNF definitions have literals/terminals in italics, which seems to imply that the occurrences of these strings should be in italics, but they are not.

    Per UML specification formatting conventions all BNF non-terminal symbols must be in italics. This means that terminals should not be in italics.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML 1.3 is incorrect that full ports cannot be behavioral and is inconsistent about what behavioral ports are

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18705
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Nicolas Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    SysML 1.3 section 9.1.3 Proxy Ports and Full Ports states:

    Full ports cannot be behavioral in the UML sense of standing in for the owning object, because they handle features themselves, rather than exposing features of their owners, or internal parts of their owners.

    This is incorrect; see UML 2.5, section 11.3.3 Structured Classifier Semantics:

    A Port has the ability, by setting the property isBehavior to true, to specify that any requests arriving at this Port are handled by the Behavior of the instance of the owning EncapsulatedClassifier, rather than being forwarded to any contained instances, if any. Such a Port is called a behavior Port. If there is no Behavior defined for this EncapsulatedClassifier, any communication arriving at a behavior Port is lost.

    Based on the UML 2.5 semantics of behavioral ports, there is no legitimate reason to exclude a SysML 1.3 FullPort to be behavioral in the UML sense.

    This is inconsistent with SysML 1.3, section 9.3.2.7 FlowProperty:

    Items going to or from behavioral ports (UML isBehavior = true) are actually going to or from the owning block. (See “Block” on page 66 for definition of owning block of proxy ports in this case.)

    The above is consistent with the UML 2.5 semantics but it is inconsistent with the SysML 1.3 semantics of FullPort above.

    Finally, SysML 1.3 section 9.3.2.8 FullPort states:

    They cannot be behavioral ports, or linked to internal parts by binding connectors, because these constructs imply identity with the owning block or internal parts.

    The notion that a behavioral port implies identity with the owning block or internal parts is incorrect and does not make sense.

    It would require that a behavioral port to be typed by its owning block or internal part.

    It would be impossible for a block A to have a behavioral port typed by B for example.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 9 May 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    SysML restriction for behavior port is semantically consistent

    The semantic specialization that SysML provides with full and proxy ports is consistent with the restriction regarding the value of the "isBehavior" property of UML::Port and does not violate the UML specification at all.

    UML states that some ports can be behavior port and some other not. SysML introduces the concept of "full port", specifies that this specialization of UML::Port cannot be used for behavior port and explain why. Such a restriction in perfectly legal according to the semantics of UML::Stereotype that SysML uses for that purpose and the justification of the this restriction is semantically consistent.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Ports and Flows

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18458
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    The title of section 9.4.2 includes the term "Flow Ports", which is deprecated. I think it should be "Flow properties". Maybe an editing instruction for a 1.3 issue exists for this, not sure.

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Revise title for section 9.4.2

    Replace the title of section 9.4.2 which is currently "Flow ports and Item Flows" by "Ports and Item Flows"

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Problems with 1.3 Enumeration Literals

  • Key: SYSML16-94
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17501
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    In section 6.3 ,the convention is given that indicates that enumeration literals within SysML are named with the suffix of Kind.

    Enumeration types: always end with “Kind” (e.g., “DependencyKind”).

    Several of the SysML enumeration literals are correctly named, but the following do not follow the convention:

    Section 9.3.2 Figure 9.1 FlowDirection --> FlowDirectionKind

    Section 9.3.2 Figure 9.4 FeatureDirection --> FeatureDirectionKind

    Section 11.3.3 Figure 11.9 ControlValue --> ControlValueKind

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 12 Jun 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Enumerations shall follow the naming convention specified by in section 6.3

    Reporter is right that the naming of those enumerations is inconsistent with the directive given in section 6.3

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Flow port compatibility with behavior

  • Key: SYSML16-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14058
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Sanford Friedenthal)
  • Summary:

    Flow port compatibility with behavior. Semantics of flow ports need to be clarified as they relate to behavior. In particular, need to clarify how flow properties are passed to behavior (classifier behavior, owned behavior) including to the parameters of operations and activities.

  • Reported: SysML 1.1 — Tue, 7 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Issue is obsolete

    This issue is about flow ports which are deprecated.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Section: 9.3.2.5 FlowPort

  • Key: SYSML16-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10410
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The relationship between a behavioral flow port and parameters is marked as a semantic variation point. Isn't it possible to specify a concrete relationship here? The specification proposes a binding relationship. What is a binding relationship? It is not known in SysML or UML.

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Issue is obsolete

    This issue is about flow ports which are deprecated

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

layout error for compartment name

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19858
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The "part" (name of the third compartment of the block Block1 in Table 8.1) exceeds its scope/space. Name: Jingang Zhou
    Employer: Neusoft
    mailFrom: zjg_robin@hotmail.com

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 25 Nov 2015 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    layout error

    already fixed in SysML 1.5

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Sample problem: Parts are added directly into package

  • Key: SYSML16-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11499
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

It is not allowed in UML to display stereotypes of related elements

  • Key: SYSML16-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11496
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Lack of notation for units and dimensions on values.

  • Key: SYSML16-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11493
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

BindingConnector end s multiplicity

  • Key: SYSML16-10
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Issue: Nested connector ends

  • Key: SYSML16-9
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

standard way to describe a flow of data in sequence diagrams

  • Key: SYSML16-8
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Block namespace compartment: Are external relationships allowed

  • Key: SYSML16-7
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Timing diagrams

  • Key: SYSML16-6
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

the use of <> is still unclear and inconsistent

  • Key: SYSML16-5
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML: Generalizing Activites

  • Key: SYSML16-3
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML: UML Qualified Associations

  • Key: SYSML16-2
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML: Protocol State Machines needed

  • Key: SYSML16-1
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Constraint clarification

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

    SysML deviates significantly from the latest UML specification in its concept of constraint, and not in a bad way. But the resulting differences are not well defined in the SysML specification. The UML spec is quite explicit in restricting constraints only to ValueExpressions which not only evaluate to Boolean but, when evaluated, have no side effects on the model. From the UML 2.5 specification:

    7.6.3 Semantics. The specification of a Constraint is given by a ValueSpecification (see Clause 8) of type Boolean…A Constraint is evaluated by evaluating its specification. If the specification evaluates to true, then the Constraint is satisfied at that time. If the specification evaluates to false, then the Constraint is not satisfied, and the realization of the model in which the evaluation occurs is not valid.
    7.6.4 Notation. The Constraint may then be notated textually within braces ({}) according to the following BNF:
    <constraint> ::= ‘{‘ [ <name> ‘:’ ] <boolean-expression> ‘ }’
    7.8.3.6 Constraints (of Constraint Classifier).

    • boolean_value - The ValueSpecification for a Constraint must evaluate to a Boolean value.
    • no_side_effects - Evaluating the ValueSpecification for a Constraint must not have side effects.

    8.3.1 Expressions-Summary. Expressions are ValueSpecifications that specify values resulting from a computation.

    Moreover, the UML spec makes no qualification for the evaluation of OpaqueExpressions, i.e., they must evaluate to Boolean. This is clearly not the case for SysML-style constraints, which include mathematical expressions (i.e., ValueSpecification<OpaqueExpression) that can be evaluated to type real and can cause state transitions and other changes to a model. It is difficult to understand how one could execute a model without this capability. Perhaps the Boolean constraint on constraints is a holdover from the earliest days of UML. It is one thing to constrain the mere logic of code and quite another to constrain the reality of real world objects. Essentially, all constraints in SysML are expressed as OpaqueExpressions, with special cases (i.e., a<b) evaluating as Boolean. Since most tools make this SysML assumption, this difference needs to be formalized, or at least reconciled, in SysML Clause 10.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 2 Dec 2015 04:09 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; Out Of Scope — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Constraint clarification

    It appears more to be a conceptual change than a bug which we can fix in the RTF of 1.6. That's why we think it should go as requirement to SysML 2.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT
  • Attachments:

Missing one right parenthesis in the constraint equation

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19862
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The constraint "

    {v(n+1 = v(n)+a*32*3600/5280*dt}

    " for the containt block VelocityEquation in Figure D.34 lacks a right parenthesis, which results in error of the contraint.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Missing one right parenthesis in the constraint equation

    already fixed in SysML 1.5

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

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

  • Key: SYSML16-30
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

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

  • Key: SYSML16-29
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML: Align SysML Activities with Foundational UML

  • Key: SYSML16-28
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Figure B.34 and Figure B.35

  • Key: SYSML16-27
  • 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.

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Tue, 1 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Annex B, Figure B.29

  • Key: SYSML16-25
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Annex B / Figure B.38

  • Key: SYSML16-24
  • 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

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Wed, 2 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Annex B / Figure B.35


Annex B / Figure B27

  • Key: SYSML16-22
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Annex B / Figure B.9

  • Key: SYSML16-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12146
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic ( Darren Kelly)
  • Summary:

    Figure B.9: clarify turnIgnitionToStart message on driver:Driver Is it supposed to be a message to self ? If so please include message to self path, otherwise explain,

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Wed, 2 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT
  • Attachments:

Annex B / Figure B.10

  • Key: SYSML16-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12145
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic ( Darren Kelly)
  • Summary:

    Figure B.10: justify/clarify 'StartVehicle' from outside in terms of UML Please clarify how UML4SysML supports the drawing of a 'StartVehicle' message from the boundary of a ref Interaction.

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Wed, 2 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Annex B / B.4.8.3 Activity Diagram (in sample problem)

  • Key: SYSML16-19
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

10.3.1.2 Parametric Diagram: square box notation

  • Key: SYSML16-18
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Item Flows on Activity Diagrams

  • Key: SYSML16-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12125
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Raytheon ( Rick Steiner)
  • Summary:

    Since ItemFlow is a stereotype of InformationFlow, it can be related to an ActivityEdge and depicted on an Activity Diagram. At least one tool has provided this capability. Clarify the use of ItemFlows on Activity Diagrams in the specification: If this is not desirable, then an additional constraint must be added to ItemFlows to prevent it. Personally, I like the idea of representing ItemFlows on ObjectFlows, but the semantic meaning of this representation is unclear. If this is retained, then it should be discussed in both chapter 9 and chapter 11.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 2 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Inferred Allocation on Allocate Activity Partitions

  • Key: SYSML16-16
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Diagram interchange

  • Key: SYSML16-15
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML: Interaction diagram and Data-based comm of SysML

  • Key: SYSML16-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11627
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    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?

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

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

  • Key: SYSML16-52
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML 1.2 Issue Viewpoint referencing other viewpoints properties

  • Key: SYSML16-51
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Flow properties and activity paramters

  • Key: SYSML16-50
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Inheriting Allocations

  • Key: SYSML16-49
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Ability for a binding connector to be typed

  • Key: SYSML16-48
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Do parametric bindings observe derived and read-only properties

  • Key: SYSML16-47
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Binding to multiplicity in parametrics

  • Key: SYSML16-46
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

callout notation issues

  • Key: SYSML16-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14575
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Proposal to have a stereotype for reference nested property

  • Key: SYSML16-42
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

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

  • Key: SYSML16-41
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Allocations should not generate dependencies

  • Key: SYSML16-39
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

AllocateActivityPartition and UML 2 semantics

  • Key: SYSML16-37
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Support BDD's for State Machines

  • Key: SYSML16-36
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13263
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    One very powerful organizational technique of SysML is the pairing of definitional diagrams with usage diagrams

    BDD (for Blocks) IBDs

    BDD (for Activities) ACTs

    BDD (for Constraint Blocks) PARs

    The BDD form identifies the elements (structural, functional, constraint) and the 2nd form assembles the elements using detailed design techniques suitable for the element form.

    It would be convenient and symmetric to support a similar diagram for for State Machines

    BDD(for States) STMs

    In the past, Class diagrams for States (in UML 1.x) were used. However, it appears that UML 2.x has deleted the ability to use inheritance relationships among states. Though we could look to UML to fix this, I believe it is possible to model state->substate relationships as compositions without a change to UML to produce a satisfactory conclusion.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Binding Relationships require unit conversions

  • Key: SYSML16-35
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Representation of nested object nodes in activity diagrams

  • Key: SYSML16-32
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Requirements interchange issue

  • Key: SYSML16-31
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Blocks cannot own items flows

  • Key: SYSML16-62
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Another issue with allocate

  • Key: SYSML16-61
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML primitive value types

  • Key: SYSML16-60
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15882
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML Issue on Multiplicity of Use Case Communication Associations

  • Key: SYSML16-59
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML Issue representation of properties as associations

  • Key: SYSML16-58
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML Issue based on UML 15369

  • Key: SYSML16-57
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Figure B.35 object nodes


SysML 1.2 Issues: Optional with streaming

  • Key: SYSML16-55
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Continuous flows in non-streaming situations with >1 multiplicities

  • Key: SYSML16-54
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML 1.2 Issues: DistributedProperties on Activates

  • Key: SYSML16-53
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

InstanceSpecification equality

  • Key: SYSML16-78
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16653
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Nicolas Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Multiple InstanceSpecifications can describe overlapping sets of instances, and some application need to specify whether the sets overlap. For InstanceSpecifications that specify exactly one instance, this indicates whether they describe the same instance, like the sameAs stereotype in the Ontology Definition Metamodel.

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Mon, 7 Nov 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

InstanceSpecifications for exactly one instance

  • Key: SYSML16-77
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16652
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Nicolas Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    InstanceSpecifications describe sets of instances, including the empty set, but some applications need to describe exactly one instance. SysML should have InstanceSpecifications that are constrained to describe exactly one instance, like the owlIndividual stereotype in the Ontology Definition Metamodel.

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Mon, 7 Nov 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Content of Requirement::/tracedTo

  • Key: SYSML16-75
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Can Enumerations be used on parametric diagrams for typing constraint parameters

  • Key: SYSML16-74
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16304
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PTC ( 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

TestCase should use PackageMerge

  • Key: SYSML16-73
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Association owning ends

  • Key: SYSML16-72
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

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

  • Key: SYSML16-71
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16113
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    the parameter of the constraint block StraightLineVehicleDynamics shown in figure B.31 seems to be incomplete w.r.t. to figure B.30. Is it ok?

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Where have stereotypes been defined?

  • Key: SYSML16-70
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16112
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    in some figures of the examples provided in Annex, some stereotypes are displayed: <<domain>>, <<external>>, <<diagramDescription>>, … and so on. Can someone tell me where these stereotypes have been defined?

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Definition of part

  • Key: SYSML16-68
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Item flows can have multiple types but item properties cannot

  • Key: SYSML16-66
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

SysML Issue on Refine limitations

  • Key: SYSML16-65
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16016
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    The text description of how the refine relationship can be used disagrees with formal restrictions.

    On page 126, 2nd paragraph, the text says.

    “The refine requirement relationship can be used to describe how a model element or set of elements can be used to further refine a requirement. For example, a use case or activity diagram may be used to refine a text-based functional requirement. Alternatively, it may be used to show how a text-based requirement refines a model element. In this case, some elaborated text could be used to refine a less fine-grained model element.”

    This allows a refine relationship to be

    [Requirement] ß1..*[Model element]

    Or

    [Requirement] à [Model element]

    However, Figure 16.1 only has

    /refinedBy:Named Element[*] as property for a Requirement

    Thus it is not possible to have a requirement refine a model element.

    This is confirmed by Figure 16.2, which in showing the tags for a NamedElement

    Has /refines Requirement [*]

    This is confirmed in table 16.2 by only showing paths that allow a NamedElement to refine a requirement (and not the other way around).

    So problem 1.

    The text and restrictions disagree, fix the text to be as follows, by deleting the last sentence:

    The refine requirement relationship can be used to describe how a model element or set of elements can be used to further refine a requirement. For example, a use case or activity diagram may be used to refine a text-based functional requirement. Alternatively, it may be used to show how a text-based requirement refines a model element. In this case, some elaborated text could be used to refine a less fine-grained model element.

    Problem 2

    The text indicates the refine relationship may be from a diagram. A diagram is not a metaclass in UML or SysML and cannot participate in this way. Please strike the word “diagram” from the text

    Final wording

    The refine requirement relationship can be used to describe how a model element or set of elements can be used to further refine a requirement. For example, a use case or activity may be used to refine a text-based functional requirement.

    Additional comment.

    It’s unclear in these circumstances, to me at least, whether two different use cases that «refine» a requirement are participating in the same refinement relationship or are just stored in a common location in the requirement.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 9 Feb 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Description of Item Flows

  • Key: SYSML16-64
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

IBD notation doesn't distinguish item properties from connector labels

  • Key: SYSML16-63
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:17 GMT

Missing type constraints for FullPort

  • Key: SYSML16-99
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:16 GMT

Missing ownership constraints

  • Key: SYSML16-98
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:16 GMT

Interface blocks and protocols

  • Key: SYSML16-97
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:16 GMT

How to refer to properties of an extension?

  • Key: SYSML16-96
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18168
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    For a practical usage it is required to be able to refer to a property of a stereotype application, for instance as target or source of an allocation relationship. This need is somewhat similar to that of referencing a nested property but we shall make sure the solution selected for the Common Reference Path will be able to address this case too.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 2 Apr 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:16 GMT

Contradiction regarding allowed use of the derived indicator for constraint parameters

  • Key: SYSML16-95
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:16 GMT

SysML: References to CreateEvent incorrect

  • Key: SYSML16-93
  • 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: Deferred — SysML 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:16 GMT

Callout notation for port-specific types and initial values

  • Key: SYSML16-91
  • 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 1.6
  • Disposition Summary:

    Defer

    Postponed to the next RTF

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:16 GMT

clarification, what "part property" is

  • Key: SYSML16-89
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17307
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: No Magic, Inc. ( 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