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

SysML 1.7 RTF — All Issues

Open Closed All
All Issues

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
SYSML17-467 Implementation of non-normative extensions cannot be used in other OMG specifications SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-475 move to SystemOfQuantities SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-474 rename getKindOfQuantitiesForMeasurementUnit SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-473 OCL is not syntatically correct see ->allUnits() SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-472 wrongfully copied SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-471 OCL with SpecializedQuantityKind needs to be changed SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-465 Figure E.19 not consistent with XMI SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-449 QUDV: SystemOfUnits::accessibleQuantityKinds() is a copy & paste error SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-451 QUDV: Documentation of SystemOfUnits::getUnit() is missing SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-453 Figure E.8 depicts instance specifications with invalid slots SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-460 Figure E.11: Make it a package diagram and update the URI's SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-443 QUDV: dependOnUnits() operation is not redefined SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-445 QUDV: Constraints [1] and [2]of SystemOfUnits are operations SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-441 SimpleQuantityKind::dependsOnQuantityKinds() not specified as a redefinition SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-447 QUDV: SystemOfUnits constraint systemOfQuantitiesIncludesAllUnitsQuantityKinds not documented in PDF SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-433 QUDV::LinearConversionUnit constraint isInvertible=true SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-431 QUDV::AffineConversionUnit constraint isInvertible=true SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-435 QUDV.xmi: Prefix::symbol multiplicity should be 0..1 SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-439 Return parameters of operations in annex E.5.2 have wrong parameter direction SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-421 Description of SysMLStructureDiagram is missing SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-423 Remove second constraint of SysMLBehaviorDiagram SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-425 Section C.3.2.3 should not be a section, but only a headline without numbering SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-415 Incorrect placement of sections in chapter 17 SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-417 Figure 13-1 shows two identical names in the same namespace SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-419 Figure 12-1 shows two identical names in the same namespace SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-59 Definition of part SysML 1.2 open
SYSML17-74 clarification, what "part property" is SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-135 No support for dot notation in activity and sequence diagrams SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-172 ConnectorProperty is redundant SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-458 QUDV: PrefixedUnit has no quantity kind SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-463 QUDV: Specification of PrefixedUnit should have a QuantityKind SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-469 ControlValue to ControlValueKind SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-468 Changes to Annex D sample problem figures may impact on some specification body figures SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-365 Meta-ticket: SysML-1.6: Specification body (only) figure inconsistencies and errors and related text inconsistencies SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-185 Sample problem diagrams are inconsistent, need to refactor from integrated model SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-366 Need constraint for inverted provided/required Interfaces (InterfaceRealization and Usage) on ~InterfaceBlock SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-464 Constraint Typos SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-454 QUDV: Unknown property primaryQuantityKind SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-462 SysML model URI in the specification document SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-411 Figure 9-5 is identical with figure 9-4 SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-409 Figure 8-1: Wrong property notation SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-297 Figure 11-14 is identical with figure 11-13 SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-141 "Allocated From" should be "Allocated" SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-148 Owning Block definition is unclear SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-73 9.3.2.9 What is InterfaceBlock? SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-6 Block namespace compartment: Are external relationships allowed SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-11 It is not allowed in UML to display stereotypes of related elements SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-30 Representation of nested object nodes in activity diagrams SysML 1.1 open
SYSML17-455 Suggest capability to list :features on Pin symbols and on elided Pin "ObjectNode" rectangle symbol SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-456 Suggest capability to list :features on ItemFlows in a rectangle symbol over a Connector or Association line SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-103 SysML Issues on Item Property values in an IBD SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-357 Suggest introduce strict diagram policy: avoid "elided Pin" ObjectNode notation in Activity Diagrams in all revised and future specification figures SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-16 ItemFlows support on Activity & Interaction Diagrams SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-438 Body conditions of operation in QUDV model should be Boolean expressions SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-437 QUDV::PrefixedUnit: Redefinition of quantityKind SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-430 Issues in figure E-7 SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-429 Figure E-6 is identical with E-5 SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-427 Fix figure e-5 SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-414 7_composition_acyclic wrong SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-13 SysML: Interaction diagram and Data-based comm of SysML SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-31 Binding Relationships require unit conversions SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-104 Pull semantics for flow properties SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-351 If there is no «port» keyword in UML-2.5.1 or SysML-1.6 it should be removed from Figure 9-8 SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-408 orderedMember in ElementGroup should be {ordered} SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-406 AbstractRequirement needs to be consistent SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-405 Description for getSatisfies SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-404 Parameter names mismatch in ~InterfaceBlock::areConjugated(Property, Property) SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-401 Suggest introduce an operation to obtain the magnitude of a value property in a given compatible Unit (to afford equality comparison) SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-399 Taken literally the text and OCL of constraint '6_valueproperties_composite' imply that every FlowProperty typed by a ValueType should have AggregationKind 'composite' SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-400 Property types 'Four general categories of properties of blocks are recognized in SysML ...' does not cover FlowProperty SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-367 InterfaceBlock: OCL constraint 2_no_part is missing FlowProperty check for cases where a FlowProperty is not typed by a ValueType SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-395 Compartments for Connectors and Participants SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-394 Suggest not allow an AssociationBlock to type a BindingConnector used for pure proxying SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-386 All kinds of errors in Fig. 8-17 SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-348 Figure 8-17: Vehicle specialization: multiple inconsistencies SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-388 constraint needed SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-393 Relationship should be specified for Stakeholder to a View SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-392 Adjunct allows for additional notation on CallBehaviorActions SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-391 What are redefined BoundReferences SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-390 EndPathMultiplicity and BoundReference Ordered and Unique SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-389 Lower and Upper Explained SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-387 Lower and Upper are constrained SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-385 Statement about EndPathMultiplicity SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-384 BoundReference Specificity SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-383 BoundReference Diagram is wrong SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-382 Unclear English Statement SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-317 Incorrect description of SysMLBlockDefinitionDiagram SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-139 Derived attribute should also be read only SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-52 SysML primitive value types SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-310 Figure 9-5 and 9-4 are the same SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-1 SysML: Protocol State Machines needed SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-377 Make Annex E Optional but Normative SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-265 Stereotype Rate extends ObjectNode in the XMI, but not in the abstract syntax in the specification SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-9 BindingConnector end s multiplicity SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-8 Issue: Nested connector ends SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-5 Timing diagrams SysML 1.0 open
SYSML17-372 Figure E.6 QUDV Units Diagram display exactly the same content as Figure E.5 QUDV Concepts Diagram SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-271 Typos/editorials found in the SysML 1.6 specification document SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-347 The 'initialValues' compartment needs to be renamed 'contextValues' and they need to be referred to as 'context-specific values' SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-371 Suggest primary/replica as alternative to master/slave terminology for Copy relationship SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-370 SysML-1.6: Refers to both 'composite requirement' and 'compound requirement' SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-369 BindingConnector constraint 1_compatible_types: Use of OCL conformsTo contradicts definition of compatibility of connected ProxyPort, does not admit per Feature compatibility or compatibility via a union of connected features SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-368 9.3.2.13 ProxyPort 'When a proxy port is connected to a single internal part ...' extend to include ' or port on an internal part' SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-150 Owned properties of an InterfaceBlock SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-361 SysML-1.6: text on Requirement 'Test and procedure conditions' is mangled in 'Figure 16-2: Requirements Derivation' (was OK in SysML-1.5) [also affects Figure 16-6] SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-362 'Figure 16-2: Requirements Derivation' indeed shows DeriveReqt but spec text refers to it as 'an example of a compound requirement' SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-349 'Figure 9-6: Usage example of ports with provided and required features' does not expose any directed features SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-350 SysML-1.6 does not leverage redefinition of 'sp:Surface' on 'Figure 9-7: Usage example of proxy and full ports'. And does not show direction of flows on Ports symbols SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-352 Figure 9-16 and Figure 9-17 'Usage example of item flow decomposition': multiple inconsistencies SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-353 The ControlValue input to Monitor Traction without a Pin is invalid in 'Figure 11-10: Continuous system example 1' and multiple issues with ControlOperator SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-354 Edge for [else] in 'Figure 11-11: Continuous system example 2' should be an ObjectFlow not a ControlFlow SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-364 Suggest additional main body figure illustrating context-specific values (initialValues) compartment used for deep system configuration SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-329 Inconsistent incoming ObjectFlow and outgoing ControlFlows on the DecisionNode in Figure 11.12 - Continuous system example 3 'Enable on Brake Pressure > 0' SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-355 'Figure 15-4: Behavior Allocation' multiple issues in the diagram and the supporting text SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-89 Figures 15.5 and 15.6 diagram types SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-356 'Figure 15-7: Example of flow allocation from ObjectNode to FlowProperty' does not allocate to a FlowProperty and multiple other minor issues SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-360 Fig D.41 should be bdd with instance specs & slot values, not ibd with default values SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-4 the use of <> is still unclear and inconsistent SysML 1.0 open
SYSML17-2 SysML: UML Qualified Associations SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-363 SysML-1.6: DeriveReqt: OCL constraint directions client vs supplier SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-358 Trivial: consistency: Either show the [metaclass] on all Stereotype symbols or none in 'Figure 16-1: Abstract Syntax for Requirements Stereotypes' SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-85 Figure 15.8 diagram type SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-48 Figure B.35 object nodes SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-22 Annex B / Figure B.35 SysML 1.0 open
SYSML17-25 Figure B.34 and Figure B.35 SysML 1.0 open
SYSML17-93 Don't use the optional notation for Pins with Allocation SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-339 Figure D.24 Parametric Diagram does not explicitly show «equal» keyword or '=' on BindingConnectors SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-344 Typo: 'not' should be 'nor' in '... not is this always even desirable' SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-343 Typo: references to FuelTankAssy should be FuelTankAssembly for consistency with Figure D.25 SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-334 Typo: 'Various other model elements may be necessary to help develop a derived requirement, and these model element' plural missing SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-336 Typo: Missing end parentheses bracket: '(described in D.4.3 Elaborating Behavior (Sequence and State Machine Diagrams)' SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-330 Typo: 'with is owned by the AutomotiveDomain block.' SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-342 Need Connector from fuel:Fuel to :FuelPump in 'Figure D.25 Detailed Internal Structure of Fuel Delivery Subsystem (Internal Block Diagram)' SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-341 Naming inconsistencies 'Figure D.24 is a parametric diagram showing how fuel flowrate is related to FuelDemand and FuelPressure value properties.' SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-338 Figure D.23 has FuelFlow stereotyped by the DEPRECATED «flowSpecification» SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-332 'Figure D.7 - Elaborating Black Box Behavior' some OCL missing, State names in oclInState() should be capital first letter, and display of name of alt fragment SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-345 SysML-1.6: Figure D.25 has the type Fuel for both an in Port and an out Port on FuelTankAssembly (and it is not ideal to have same name as the Classifier that flows) SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-346 7.3.2.3 Expose refers to 'The method' without referencing Viewpoint SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-340 Typo: 'Binding connectors, as defined in Clause 8 are used ...' missing comma SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-333 Typo: 'Deleting the container requirement deleted the nested requirements, a functionality inherited from UML.' should be 'deletes' SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-337 Typo: 9.3.2.8 FlowProperty 'A flow propertys values' SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-335 For Connectors in IBD Figure D.4 to be typed by implied anonymous Associations need define them in BDD Figure D.15 between 'HybridSUV' and: 'Driver', 'Maintainer', 'Passenger', 'Baggage', 'Environment' SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-331 In Figure D.2 Real appears to be owned by the Automotive Value Types ModelLibrary (with no explicit ElementImport) SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-109 Convention for enumeration not used for ControlValue SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-307 Lots of ControlValues that should be ControlValueKinds SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-7 standard way to describe a flow of data in sequence diagrams SysML 1.0 open
SYSML17-77 Contradiction regarding allowed use of the derived indicator for constraint parameters SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-29 Requirements interchange issue SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-63 TestCase should use PackageMerge SysML 1.2 open
SYSML17-60 Where have stereotypes been defined? SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-42 Flow properties and activity paramters SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-319 It should not be allowed to modify an AdjunctProperty SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-152 Parameter direction typo in XMI SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-137 Missing comment for some attributes SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-232 Table 8.3: Row ActorPart shows Actor SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-289 Allocate: Error in operation bodies SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-266 UML::ExceptionHandler should be part of SysML SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-101 About Rate, Continuous and Discrete SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-76 SysML: References to CreateEvent incorrect SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-62 Association owning ends SysML 1.2 open
SYSML17-55 IBD notation doesn't distinguish item properties from connector labels SysML 1.2 open
SYSML17-39 Do parametric bindings observe derived and read-only properties SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-18 Annex B / B.4.8.3 Activity Diagram (in sample problem) SysML 1.0 open
SYSML17-17 10.3.1.2 Parametric Diagram: square box notation SysML 1.0 open
SYSML17-3 SysML: Generalizing Activites SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-81 Missing type constraints for FullPort SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-316 Duplicated sentence SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-315 Unexpected word 'Figure' in Figure 4-2 name SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-314 Unexpected section number SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-313 Clarify that contraint parameters are value properties SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-107 proxy and full port notation change request SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-308 7_cannot_redefine_boundreference is too constrained SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-306 Aggregation multiplicities not correct SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-300 SysML 1.6 statement is too strong SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-299 Caveat is not specific for UseCases SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-293 Introduction to 9.1.3 Proxy Ports and Full Ports might be interpreted as SysML only permitting Full and Proxy Ports (not standard ports) SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-298 Continuous and Discrete need to be on FlowProperties as well SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-296 No Creation and Destruction Event in Current UML SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-295 Figure 9.5 missing, duplicates 9.4 SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-255 BDD representation of activity hierarchy SysML 1.5b1 open
SYSML17-159 Reference Properties do not reference properties SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-290 Remove reference to non-existing properties allocatedFrom and allocatedTo SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-286 Remove notation form ActorPart SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-284 Conjugation Stereotype SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-285 is the stereotype <<~InterfaceBlock>> SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-283 Need Bound References Compartment SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-274 Parameters and Variables don't make sense SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-181 VerdictKind enumeration missing SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-182 Verdict described incorrecty SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-239 AllocateActivityPartition: Reference to UML specification is wrong SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-176 SysML::Trace relationship is not specialized from UML::Trace in the XMI SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-177 SysML::Refine relationship is not specialized from UML::Refine in the XMI SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-167 Description of AdjunctProperty SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-248 The definition of AdjunctProperty SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-160 DirectedFeature is confusing SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-156 Replace UML4SysML::Kernel by UML4SysML::Generalization SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-157 Typos/editorials found in the SysML 1.5 specification document SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-70 Error in pending 1.3 diagram 15.6 and elsewhere SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-68 SysML's PrimitiveValueTypes library is missing "value" properties everywhere SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-151 The AdjunctProperty is not clearly described SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-234 QUDV library inconsistently uses SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-57 SysML Issue on Refine limitations SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-26 SysML: Align SysML Activities with Foundational UML SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-10 Lack of notation for units and dimensions on values. SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-278 AbstractRequirement: direction of /tracedTo wrong in Attributes description SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-276 Description of getRefines() restricts returned elements to AbstractRequirement [0..*] but the OCL static query does not (effectively NamedElement [0..*]) SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-277 Description of getRefines() has typo and inconsistent singular vs plural SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-145 Shared parts are still parts SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-275 Parts is too restrictive SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-273 Missing guard brackets in example activity diagram 11-12 SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-261 How to interpret non-Navigation SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-252 ConstraintBlock: abstract syntax consistency SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-251 Syntactical clarification for ConstraintBlock SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-258 No changebars in SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-257 Proposal: patent-friendly part/element numbering system with compliant solid line SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-126 specializations of requirement should specialize AbstractRequirement SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-250 Should <> have a capital V? SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-249 Duplicate Elements in Table SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-243 Refine / Trace relationship operations are too restrictive SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-242 VerdictKind should also have the literal none SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-53 Another issue with allocate SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-61 parameter of the constraint block StraightLineVehicleDynamics shown in figure B.31 seems to be incomplete SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-64 Can Enumerations be used on parametric diagrams for typing constraint parameters SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-83 SysML stereotype notation creates ambiguity about to which element is the stereotype applied SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-161 Add Graphical notation for General Classifier SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-105 Depletive/non-depletive semantics of ReadStructuralFeatureActions on FlowProperties SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-102 SysML says nothing about how to deal with multiplicity for flow properties matching SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-38 Binding to multiplicity in parametrics SysML 1.1 open
SYSML17-237 Precise Semantics for SysML SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-233 Comments in the XMI have no annotated elements SysML 1.6b1 open
SYSML17-231 ProxyPort property "matching" SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-229 cannot model and validate physical connections SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-220 Bad reference in section 4.2 SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-222 Typo: Constraint name 8 of Adjunct Property SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-218 Stakeholder constraint is listed twice SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-174 Connectors are not allowed in bdd SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-178 Virtual member representing the whole RTF SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-165 Typo in revised text of issue SYSML16-289 SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-158 Statements missing in the abstract syntax description SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-146 Numeric Literals as constraint block property parameter values SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-143 Expand use of rake symbol for all decompositions SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-144 Specify a specific part from a collection of parts on an IBD SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-142 Requirement ID should be immutable SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-138 Hanging Clauses Throughout SysML 1.4 SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-134 AllocateActivityPartition should be more formaly related to allocation Relationship SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-125 A discarded resolution still appears in the ballot SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-130 Description of model elements in generated document not consistent with specification SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-122 Property path notation SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-121 Missing property descriptions for Probability and Rate SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-120 Inherit from a conjugated interface block SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-119 More than one View() operation allowed SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-117 ElementGroup cannot be source or target of a dependency SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-108 Deprecate Unit and QuantityKind stereotypes in 1.4 SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-98 ProxyPort with FlowProperties SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-86 Inability to specify partial allocation and requriements satisfaction SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-82 Fix the notation (hopefully in the same way as UML) to allow allocation of a decision to a swimlane SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-78 How to refer to properties of an extension? SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-71 Property Based Requirements SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-67 InstanceSpecification equality SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-66 InstanceSpecifications for exactly one instance SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-32 Support BDD's for State Machines SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-19 Annex B / Figure B.10 SysML 1.0 open
SYSML17-20 Annex B / Figure B.9 SysML 1.0 open
SYSML17-227 About Block constraint "3" removed by SysML v1.6 SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-94 Diagram show inconsistent data SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-24 Annex B, Figure B.29 SysML 1.0 open
SYSML17-23 Annex B / Figure B.38 SysML 1.0 open
SYSML17-173 Combined call-out notation not allowed SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-12 Sample problem: Parts are added directly into package SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-21 Annex B / Figure B27 SysML 1.0 open
SYSML17-84 VerdictKind SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-97 primitive types in SysML Activities SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-214 Hidden constraints in description of PropertySpecificType SysML 1.6 open
SYSML17-140 Causality of constraints in parametric diagrams SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-28 SysML: Operations on Activities need to be callable (e.g., start, restart, cancel) SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-154 Clarification of typing a binding connector SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-184 Inappropriate character for multiplying symbol with combined units SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-175 Do not move deprecated elements SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-170 DistributedProperty should be abstract SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-168 DistributedProperty should be abstract SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-169 Diagram header is not intuitively interpreted SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-163 Excluded UML metaclasses are not formally defined SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-162 Add signal to constraint [1] for DistributedProperty SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-153 Replace all occurrences of "has been" by "is" SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-147 Diagram formality confusion SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-136 SysML XMI typos in UML StandardProfile XMI references SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-133 Copy, DeriveReqt don't have operations, but Refine, Satisfy, Trace, Verify do. SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-132 ConnectorProperty notation in wrong section. SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-131 Parts, references, values compartments in wrong section SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-129 Definition of SysML stereotypes: association ends versus attributes SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-128 Make ItemFlow a specialization of DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-127 Resolve inconsistency concerning restricion of ItemFlow type hierarchy SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-124 ISO-80000 ValueType stereotype applications have wrong unit and quantityKind values SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-123 Does the objectiveFunction stereotype generalizes the ConstraintBlock stereotype or UML::property? SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-118 Table 12.1 has incorrect "int" typed arguments (4x) SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-116 [SysML] Semantic variation points SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-114 Need clarification about possible configurations of the new ports introduced in SysML 1.3 and of their semantics SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-112 URI for the SysML Profile given in section E.3 is wrong SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-110 Update to Trace Relationship’ SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-106 Semantics clarification for removing a value from an out Flow Property SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-100 The SysML classification of properties is incomplete SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-96 Semantics of multiple Dependencies SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-95 Clarification required for Copy relationship SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-91 Allocated notation on object nodes missing from diagram elements table SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-90 Allocation tabular notation normative? SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-88 9.3.2.4 direction of ports and their notation (second issue) SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-80 Missing ownership constraints SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-87 9.3.2.4 direction of ports SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-79 Interface blocks and protocols SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-75 Callout notation for port-specific types and initial values SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-72 SysML XMI seems to define its own versions of UML Primitive Types rather than reusing those from UML SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-171 DistributedProperty shall have an operation that checks whether a value is conform to the constraints of the distribution SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-166 Inconsistency between xmi and pdf for Trace and Refine specializations SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-164 SysML 1.6 should be based on UML 2.5.1 SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-155 Inconsistency in the DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath specification SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-149 FullPort type SysML 1.5 open
SYSML17-115 Can a SysML Full Port be typed by a ValueType? SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-113 classifierBehaviorProperty and adjunctProperty notation SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-111 Abstract syntax for the initial values SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-99 Unclear is StructuredActivityNode owned Actions should be Allocated SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-92 Libraries package should be named "SysML Model Libraries" SysML 1.3 open
SYSML17-69 Question about the Activity decomposition in Block Definition Diagrams SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-65 Content of Requirement::/tracedTo SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-58 Item flows can have multiple types but item properties cannot SysML 1.2 open
SYSML17-56 Description of Item Flows SysML 1.2 open
SYSML17-54 Blocks cannot own items flows SysML 1.2 open
SYSML17-49 SysML Issue based on UML 15369 SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-51 SysML Issue on Multiplicity of Use Case Communication Associations SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-50 SysML Issue representation of properties as associations SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-47 SysML 1.2 Issues: Optional with streaming SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-46 Continuous flows in non-streaming situations with >1 multiplicities SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-45 SysML 1.2 Issues: DistributedProperties on Activates SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-43 SysML 1.2 Issue Viewpoint referencing other viewpoints properties SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-44 SysML 1.2 Issues: Default stereotype on unlabeled box is not always optimal SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-41 Inheriting Allocations SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-40 Ability for a binding connector to be typed SysML 1.1 open
SYSML17-36 Proposal to have a stereotype for reference nested property SysML 1.1 open
SYSML17-37 callout notation issues SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-35 Table 16.2 (top of pg. 146): Trace Dependency concrete syntax diagram incorrect SysML 1.1 open
SYSML17-34 Allocations should not generate dependencies SysML 1.1 open
SYSML17-33 AllocateActivityPartition and UML 2 semantics SysML 1.1 open
SYSML17-27 SysML: Activity Properties should be accessible in Activity diagrams for decision making SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-15 Inferred Allocation on Allocate Activity Partitions SysML 1.4 open
SYSML17-14 Diagram interchange SysML 1.0 open

Issues Descriptions

Implementation of non-normative extensions cannot be used in other OMG specifications

  • Status: open   Implementation work Blocked
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Daniel Brookshier)
  • Summary:

    The extensions for SysML are of value to the general community, however, because they are not delivered in a machine readable and refrencable way, they cannot be used as a basis either for making normative to another specification and/or extended by another specification. There are issues as well for model interchange because of the lack of a normative form.

    It is suggested that SysML specification change the extensions to normative but optional profile and to further describe a compliance in which if the non-normative extensions are used, the whole profile shall be used and only changed by extension of that profile. There should also be recommendations for migrating from vendor implementation of extensions to the new normative version.

    The reason for this request is that the CubeSat System Reference Mode Profile (CSRM Profile)l used the non-normative extensions as a basis to further extend into the CubeSat domain. Unfortunately the use of the vendor supplied extensions were not from a compliant profile. The CSRM Profile team was forced to copy the extensions into the CSRM Profile in order to extend and use the extensions. This creates the danger that the CSRM Profile adds copies of the extension into a vendor's SysML implementation implementation and can cause interoperability issues.

    At this time, the CSRM Profile is pre-finalization and we could convert to a compliant version rather than the copy of the extensions we created. We would like this treated as a priority fix to allow for the creation of an XMI for refere3nce by our specification.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 17 Jun 2021 13:30 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:09 GMT

move to SystemOfQuantities

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    this
    [1] The query accessibleQuantityKinds() gives all the QuantityKinds directly defined in the SystemOfQuantities or transitively in any included or used SystemOfQuantities.
    allAccessibleQuantityKinds() : QuantityKind[0..*]

    {unique}

    body: allAccessibleSystemOfQuantities()>collect(quantityKind)>flatten()->asSet() inv SoU3_3: getEffectiveSystemOfQuantities() = null or let aqk : Set(QuantityKind) = getEffectiveSystemOfQuantities().allQuantityKinds() in ->allUnits() ->forAll(u | aqk>includesAll (getKindOfQuantitiesForMeasurementUnit(u)))

    should be under SystemOfQuanties

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 20 Jul 2021 17:23 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 14:06 GMT

rename getKindOfQuantitiesForMeasurementUnit

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    getKindOfQuantitiesForMeasurementUnit should be renamed getQuantityKindsForMeasurementUnit

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 20 Jul 2021 17:11 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 14:05 GMT

OCL is not syntatically correct see ->allUnits()

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    inv SoU3_3: getEffectiveSystemOfQuantities() = null or let aqk : Set(QuantityKind) = getEffectiveSystemOfQuantities().allQuantityKinds() in ->allUnits() ->forAll(u | aqk>includesAll (getKindOfQuantitiesForMeasurementUnit(u)))

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 20 Jul 2021 16:13 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 14:05 GMT

wrongfully copied

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    this statement

    includedSystemOfUnits: SystemOfUnits[0..*] Including a SystemOfQuantities means including all of the QuantityKind it defines and includes from other SystemOfQuantities

    should reflect Units rather than SystemOfQuantities

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Jul 2021 21:33 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:21 GMT

OCL with SpecializedQuantityKind needs to be changed

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    OCL with SpecializedQuantityKind needs to be changed

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 18 Jul 2021 16:15 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:20 GMT

Figure E.19 not consistent with XMI

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Fri, 7 May 2021 17:50 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT
  • Attachments:

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

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 17:02 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT

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

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 17:12 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT

Figure E.8 depicts instance specifications with invalid slots

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 20 Apr 2021 10:37 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT

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


QUDV: dependOnUnits() operation is not redefined

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

    The QUDV blocks DerivedUnit, ConversionBasedUnit, and SimpleUnit define each a dependsOnUnits() operation which should be a redefinition of the inherited Unit::dependsOnUnits() operation.

    The redefinition is neither specified in PDF nor in the QUDV.xmi.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:52 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT

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

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

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:20 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT

SimpleQuantityKind::dependsOnQuantityKinds() not specified as a redefinition

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 11:20 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT

QUDV: SystemOfUnits constraint systemOfQuantitiesIncludesAllUnitsQuantityKinds not documented in PDF

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:53 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT

QUDV::LinearConversionUnit constraint isInvertible=true

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

    The QUDV model contains a constraint "invertible: isInvertible=true" for LinearConversionUnit, but is not mentioned in the specification document. I propose to add it to the description in section E.5.2.7.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 05:26 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT

QUDV::AffineConversionUnit constraint isInvertible=true

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

    The QUDV model contains a constraint "invertible: isInvertible=true" for AffineConversionUnit, but is not mentioned in the specification document. I propose to add it to the description in section E.5.2.1.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 18 Apr 2021 11:17 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT

QUDV.xmi: Prefix::symbol multiplicity should be 0..1

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

    In the QUDV.xmi, the multiplicity of Prefix::symbol is 1 while the specification in section 5.2.8 defines a 0..1 multiplicity.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 05:31 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT

Return parameters of operations in annex E.5.2 have wrong parameter direction

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

    The return parameters of the operations in annex 5.2 have the parameter direction "in" in the QUDV.xmi, but should have parameter direction kind "return".

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 09:21 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT

Description of SysMLStructureDiagram is missing

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

    In appendix B, the description stereotype SysMLStructureDiagram in figure B.3 is missing in section B.2.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 13 Apr 2021 09:24 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT

Remove second constraint of SysMLBehaviorDiagram

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

    The second constraint of the SysMLBehaviorDiagram is a copy of the second constraint of SysMLActivityDiagram.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 13 Apr 2021 09:28 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT

Section C.3.2.3 should not be a section, but only a headline without numbering

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

    Section C.3.2.3 Semantic Variation Points should not be a section with its own numbering. It is just a headline like "Description" in section C.3.2.2.

    The FlowPort was a stereotype of SysML 1.2. In the SysML 1.2 specification document, the section "Semantic Variation Point" was also only a unnumbered headline of the section about FlowPort.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:19 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT

Incorrect placement of sections in chapter 17

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

    Section 17.2 contains a subsection 17.2.1.1, but no subsection 17.2.1.

    Section 17.2.1.1 as well as 17.2.2.1, 17.2.2.2, and 17.2.2.3 cover content from UML and does not add SysML specific information.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:52 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT

Figure 13-1 shows two identical names in the same namespace

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

    In figure 13-1, the upper left state machine has two adjunct properties of the same name.

    I propose to simply rename the properties to "submachine state name1" and "submachine state name2".

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:36 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT
  • Attachments:

Figure 12-1 shows two identical names in the same namespace

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

    In figure 12-1, the upper left interaction has two adjunct properties of the same name.

    I propose to simply rename the properties to "interaction use name1" and "interaction use name2".

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 8 Apr 2021 16:06 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 00:31 GMT
  • Attachments:


clarification, what "part property" is

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 14:53 GMT

No support for dot notation in activity and sequence diagrams

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

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 20:42 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 15:52 GMT

ConnectorProperty is redundant

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

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:26 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 15:49 GMT

QUDV: PrefixedUnit has no quantity kind

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

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:11 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 15:29 GMT

QUDV: Specification of PrefixedUnit should have a QuantityKind

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

    The redefinition of Unit::quantityKind property by PrefixeUnit::noQuantityKind with multiplicity 0 is wrong.

    The ConversionBasedUnit class should redefine quantityKind so that it is derived from the one defined by its referenceUnit.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 29 Apr 2021 15:47 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 15:28 GMT

ControlValue to ControlValueKind

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    UML::Behavior.allInstances()>forAll(b | not (ControlOperator.allInstances().base_Behavior>includes(b) xor b.ownedParameter >exists(p | p.type=SysML::Libraries::ControlValues::ControlValue))) and UML::Operation.allInstances()>forAll(o | not (ControlOperator.allInstances().base_Operation->includes(o) xor o.ownedParameter ->exists(p | p.type=SysML::Libraries::ControlValues::ControlValue)))

    TO

    UML::Behavior.allInstances()>forAll(b | not (ControlOperator.allInstances().base_Behavior>includes(b) xor b.ownedParameter >exists(p | p.type=SysML::Libraries::ControlValues::ControlValueKind))) and UML::Operation.allInstances()>forAll(o | not (ControlOperator.allInstances().base_Operation->includes(o) xor o.ownedParameter ->exists(p | p.type=SysML::Libraries::ControlValues::ControlValueKind)))

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Fri, 18 Jun 2021 13:02 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 15:43 GMT

Changes to Annex D sample problem figures may impact on some specification body figures

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

    Changes to Annex D sample problem model (since SysML1.6) may impact on some spec body figures. Possibly impacted diagrams include:

    Figure 8-12 - Block diagram for the Wheel Package (WheelHubAssembly)

    Figure 8-13: Internal Block Diagram for WheelHubAssembly

    Figure 8-15: Vehicle decomposition

    Figure 8-16: Vehicle internal structure (BoundReference example)

    Figure 8-17: Vehicle specialization

    Figure 9-6: Usage example of ports with provided and required features

    Figure 11-11: Continuous system example

    Figure 11-13: Example block definition diagram for activity decomposition

    Figure 11-14: Example block definition diagram for object node types

    Figure 15-9: Allocation Matrix showing Allocation for Hybrid SUV Accelerate Example

    Figure 16-2: Requirements Derivation

    Figure 16-3: Links between requirements and design

    Figure 16.4: Requirement satisfaction in an internal block diagram

    Figure 16-5: Use of the copy dependency to facilitate reuse

    Figure 16-6: Linkage of a Test Case to a requirement (and Figure 16-7)

    In some cases this may also impact text that refers to these examples.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:54 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:55 GMT

Meta-ticket: SysML-1.6: Specification body (only) figure inconsistencies and errors and related text inconsistencies

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

    For issues with figures and diagrams and directly related text in the main specification body (only).

    Excludes diagrams from Annex D (but includes those diagrams in the text body that should be consistent with the Hybrid SUV sample problem).

    Includes diagrams that are not related to the Hybrid SUV sample problem.

    To prevent issue explosion, please report minor issues as single comments here.

    Please link more substantial issues related to main spec body figures and related text to this meta-ticket.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 2 Jul 2020 12:54 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:55 GMT

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

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Fri, 8 Mar 2019 19:15 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:55 GMT

Need constraint for inverted provided/required Interfaces (InterfaceRealization and Usage) on ~InterfaceBlock

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

    SysML-1.6 supports Interfaces provided/required (InterfaceRealization and Usage) by a Block, including an InterfaceBlock.

    Given that UML-style Port conjugation is not supported in SysML-1.6, a mechanism for inversion of provided/required Interfaces is needed.

    While Figure D.19 does not show the Port types, it does show provided/required Interfaces on Ports, and it is implied by other diagrams in the sample problem that those Ports that have inverted provided/required Interfaces are typed by ~InterfaceBlocks.

    A constraint should be added to 9.3.2.15 ~InterfaceBlock corresponding to the inversion of any required/provided Interfaces on the original InterfaceBlock.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Fri, 3 Jul 2020 09:25 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 14:40 GMT

Constraint Typos

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    allAccessibleQuantityKinds() : QuantityKind[0..*]

    {unique}

    body: allAccessibleSystemOfQuantities()>collect(quantityKind)>flatten()->asSet() inv SoU3_3: getEffectiveSystemOfQuantities() = null or let aqk : Set(QuantityKind) = getEffectiveSystemOfQuantities().allQuantityKinds() in ->allUnits() ->forAll(u | aqk>includesAll (getKindOfQuantitiesForMeasurementUnit(u)))

    notice the "in ->allUnits()" ... something wrong here

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 20 Apr 2021 19:38 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:33 GMT

QUDV: Unknown property primaryQuantityKind

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

    The operation SystemOfUnits::isCoherent() and the figure E.8 uses a property "primaryQuantityKind" which is not defined in E.5.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 20 Apr 2021 14:33 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 17:17 GMT

SysML model URI in the specification document

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

    Section §2 of the SysML specification should mention the URI of all the models (normative and non-normative) that are produced as part of a SysML version (i.e. those for which the URL is given on the front page)

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 29 Apr 2021 15:31 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 15:31 GMT

Figure 9-5 is identical with figure 9-4

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

    The figure 9-5 is identical with 9-4. It should be the attached figure.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:14 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 00:50 GMT
  • Attachments:

Figure 8-1: Wrong property notation

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

    The properties notation depicted in figure 8-1 is not correct. If the type is not shown, also the ':' is not shown according to the property notation BNF given in the UML specification in section 9.5.4:

    <property> ::= [<visibility>] [‘/’] <name> [‘:’ <prop-type>] [‘[‘ <multiplicity-range> ‘]’] [‘=’ <default>] [‘

    {‘ <prop-modifier > [‘,’ <prop-modifier >]* ’}

    ’]

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 21 Mar 2021 16:58 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 00:50 GMT
  • Attachments:

Figure 11-14 is identical with figure 11-13


"Allocated From" should be "Allocated"

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

    The term "Allocated From" associated with the From end of an allocation relationship is confusing when it appears in compartment or callout notation. Nerijus mentions numerous user complaints about this. A more intuitive and meaningful term would be simply "Allocated", which when appearing in a compartment label implies that the subject element has the listed elements in the compartment allocated to it.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 19 Nov 2015 15:49 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 00:50 GMT
  • Attachments:

Owning Block definition is unclear

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

    The definition of owning block for proxy port given in the description sub-section of 9.3.2.7 FlowProperty is unclear and misleading. It should be reworded and moved to the ProxyPort description

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 2 Mar 2017 15:41 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 00:50 GMT

9.3.2.9 What is InterfaceBlock?

  • Key: SYSML17-73
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17255
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    9.3.2.9 What is InterfaceBlock? Where is description? Description is the same as constraint [1] text now.
    InterfaceBlock is kind of Block, so, can it be used everywhere Block is used? e.g. part of the FullPort.

    Constraint [2]. Does it mean Interface block can't have value properties and e.g. constraint properties?
    Constaint [3] - does it mean "proxy ports" ? if so, it could be more clear text to say "InterfaceBlock can own proxy ports only"
    constraint [4] - it must be constraint[4] for FullPort???

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 00:50 GMT

Block namespace compartment: Are external relationships allowed

  • Key: SYSML17-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11011
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 00:50 GMT
  • Attachments:
    • rationale.pptx 550 kB (application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation)

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

  • Key: SYSML17-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11496
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Stereotypes, tags and constraints are displayed on elements that can’t have such stereotypes applied. It is not allowed in UML to display stereotypes of related elements (secondary references):
    a) Stereotypes
    i. Block stereotypes are displayed on parts
    ii. Block stereotypes are displayed on object nodes
    iii. Parameter stereotypes are displayed on ActivityParameterNode
    iv. Behavior or operation stereotypes are displayed on CallActions
    b) Tags
    i. Block allocations are displayed on parts
    ii. Units and dimensions shall be possible to show on properties and slots, but these tags are owned in Valuetype
    c) Constraints
    i. Constraints of ConstraintBlock are displayed on constraintProperty (B.30)

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 00:50 GMT

Representation of nested object nodes in activity diagrams

  • Key: SYSML17-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13197
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Sat, 24 Apr 2021 00:50 GMT

Suggest capability to list :features on Pin symbols and on elided Pin "ObjectNode" rectangle symbol

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

    SysML already has the capability to list :features (such as :values, :operations etc.) in compartments on Property and Port symbols in IBDs.

    The same capability could be introduced for Pin symbols in Activity Diagrams to reveal :features of the types of Pins.

    UML2.5.1 describes also an elided Pin notation where a single rectangular "ObjectNode" symbol along with two arrows (not edges) represents two Pins of identical type and a single ObjectFlow edge (in the underlying model). This notation does not have good support in all tools. It could however also benefit from the ability to list :features on that "ObjectNode" symbol (where the type is the type of the 2 Pins it actually represents).

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 21 Apr 2021 03:41 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:28 GMT

Suggest capability to list :features on ItemFlows in a rectangle symbol over a Connector or Association line

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

    This ticket is a re-imagining of (partial resurrection of) a proposal from Michael Chonoles that I strongly supported:

    https://issues.omg.org/browse/SYSML17-103

    https://issues.omg.org/browse/SYSML17-208

    If the RTF chairs truly consider any new features out-of-scope this can be bumped to SysMLv2, but as Conrad wrote under SYSML17-208:

    I think SysML 1.x should address this. It will be a long time before SysML2 is a finalized OMG spec. We should be supporting modelers in the meantime with small upgrades like this.


    SysML already has the capability to list :features (such as :values, :operations etc.) in compartments on Property and Port symbols in IBDs. Indeed, this notation has proved one of the most popular advantages of SysML over UML.

    The same capability could be introduced for ItemFlows, which could be extended to optionally support representation as a rectangle symbol on Connectors lines and Associations lines (or wherever ItemFlows may be shown), with compartments for listing :features.

    In the case where the ItemFlow does not have an itemProperty, the rectangle could appear much like a Block symbol (but over a relevant line).

    In the case where the ItemFlow has an itemProperty, the rectangle could appear much like a Property symbol (but over a relevant line).

    In both cases the header of the rectangle could show the direction arrow for the ItemFlow.

    In both cases the ability to display defaults for value properties would be extremely useful.

    (Variations on the notation would have to cope with situations where there is more than one applied ItemFlow.)

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 21 Apr 2021 04:11 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 04:12 GMT

SysML Issues on Item Property values in an IBD

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18805
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    The SysML spec does not give any notation for (or example of) specifying the values of an item property participating in an item flow. For example, if water flows in multiple places in the distiller, each should be able to have a specified temperature and dissolved matter % (perhaps as distributions).

    Perhaps a variant of a property specific type would work, perhaps a callout approach would work.

    It possible, it would be desirable to allow for multiple item properties:item flows to have the same name within an ibd, as this would be a natural modeling approach (e.g., all the pipes covey the same thing, but with different values).

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 9 Jul 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 04:12 GMT

Suggest introduce strict diagram policy: avoid "elided Pin" ObjectNode notation in Activity Diagrams in all revised and future specification figures

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

    I suggest that diagram submitters never ever again use the infamous "elided Pin notation" for ObjectNode anywhere in the spec, as it is widely misunderstood and the tool support for it is poor (broken).

    This concerns not only the Annex D sample problem, but all other Activity Diagrams in all figures in the spec.

    The problematic "elided Pin" notation as described in UML-2.5.1 :

    'An object flow is notated by an arrowed line. In Figure 15.9, upper right, the two object flow arrows denote a single object flow edge between two pins in the underlying model, as shown in the lower middle of the figure.'

    The relevant UML-2.5.1 Figure 15.9 ObjectFlow notations is attached.

    Please note how it describes the notation as two object flow arrows (notational symbols that do not correspond one-to-one to ActivityEdge elements, but rather to one ObjectFlow edge). Note also how it says there are two Pins in the underlying model.

    At least one tool implements this notation incorrectly and uses 2 ObjectFlows and a CentralBufferNode instead of two arrows and a rectangular symbol representing any ObjectNode sub-type.

    I appreciate the OMG JIRA is not intended for personal remarks, but I can't begin to explain how much time wrangling with broken "elided Pin" ObjectNode notation in one tool has cost me, time which could be better used contributing to the specification. I ask you all to please vote yes for this in a ballot soon so that I can contribute more.

    DK

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:31 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 03:47 GMT
  • Attachments:

ItemFlows support on Activity & Interaction Diagrams


Body conditions of operation in QUDV model should be Boolean expressions

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

    The body conditions of the QUDV operations in section E.5.2 are not specified as Boolean expressions. They specify only the computation of the return value.

    If the return parameter is named "result" they should be stated as

    result = <computation of return value>

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 06:36 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 06:36 GMT

QUDV::PrefixedUnit: Redefinition of quantityKind

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

    QUDV::PrefixedUnit redefines quantityKind to set the multiplicity to 0:

    noQuantityKind : QuantityKind [0]

    It would be better to define a constraint instead:
    self.quantityKind = null

    The property noQuantityKind is specified in the XMI, but not mentioned in the PDF.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 19 Apr 2021 05:42 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 05:42 GMT

Issues in figure E-7

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

    Figure E-7: QUDV QuantityKinds has the following issues:

    • Should be a bdd instead of pkg
    • Remove diagram number and icon from header
    • Remove owner from blocks
    • Association between Dimension and SystemOfQuantities: Multiplicity end systemOfQuantities is 1..* in SysML 1.6 and 0..* in SysML 1.5. There is no documented change between SysML 1.5 and SysML 1.6.
    • Association between QuantityKind and QuantityKindFactor: Multiplicity end quantityKind is 1 in SysML 1.6 and 0..* in SysML 1.5. There is no documented change between SysML 1.5 and SysML 1.6.
    • Association between DerivedQuantityKind and QuantityKindFactor: Multiplicity end DerivedQuantityKind is 1 in SysML 1.6 and 0..* in SysML 1.5. There is no documented change between SysML 1.5 and SysML 1.6.
  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sat, 17 Apr 2021 18:14 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 18:14 GMT

Figure E-6 is identical with E-5

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

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

    Figure E-6 contains some issues:

    • Should be a bdd instead of pkg
    • Unit::dependsOnUnits is a reference property and should be displayed in a separate compartment with headline "references"
    • Multiplicity at ends of associations between Unit and SystemOfUnits are 0..1 in figure E-5, but 0..* in figure E-6 in SysML 1.5 and also 0..* in figure E-5 in SysML 1.5
    • Multiplicity quantityKind (association between Unit and QuantityKind) is 1..* in figure E-5, and 0..* in figure E-6 in SysML 1.5 and also 0..* in figure E-5 in SysML 1.5
  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sat, 17 Apr 2021 17:31 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 17:54 GMT

Fix figure e-5

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

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

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

7_composition_acyclic wrong

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    I agree with this that this should be the intent... "Within an instance of a SysML Block, the instances of properties with composite aggregation shall form an acyclic graph"... but I believe the OCL statement restricts the types and not the instances... I will give an example... it should restrict an instance from being a part of itself... but is should not restrict a Type having a part of the same type (which I believe this does)... take for example something that says System has a composition to itself whose navigation end is named "subSystem"... this says that a System can contain other Systems as a part "subsystem"... this should be legal... but a system1:System cannot contain itself as a subsystem of itself... that should be illegal... I believe that your constraint, constrains the Type (which it should not) and therefore the instance... but it should only constrain the instance and not the type...

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sat, 27 Mar 2021 13:33 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 17:19 GMT

SysML: Interaction diagram and Data-based comm of SysML

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 15:37 GMT

Binding Relationships require unit conversions

  • Key: SYSML17-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13261
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 14:59 GMT

Pull semantics for flow properties

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

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

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 19 Aug 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 11:45 GMT

If there is no «port» keyword in UML-2.5.1 or SysML-1.6 it should be removed from Figure 9-8

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

    If there is no «port» keyword in UML-2.5.1 or SysML-1.6 it should be removed from Figure 9-8: Water Delivery association block

    Although it is explained in the text, I have had many clients and training customer unnecessarily imitate it.

    It [EDIT: the «port» keyword] is introduced in Figure 9-8, and then never used in any of diagrams that follow.

    If it must stay, it should be made clear that it is a user-defined stereotype keyword.

    BTW: I address this in my own models by using conventions for Port type naming: I_Contract, F_FlowStuff etc.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 29 Jun 2020 07:45 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 07:50 GMT

orderedMember in ElementGroup should be {ordered}

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    orderedMember in ElementGroup should be

    {ordered}
  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 24 Feb 2021 14:05 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:27 GMT

AbstractRequirement needs to be consistent

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    The pattern used through out the standard is with an Association End so Attribute base_NamedElement should be an association end and not an attribute

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:22 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 17:20 GMT

Description for getSatisfies

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    The Description for getSatisfies should be similar to that of getVerifies

    The query getSatisfies() gives all the requirements that are suppliers ( "to" end of the concrete syntax ) of a «Satisfy» relationships whose client is the element in parameter. This is a static query.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:04 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:15 GMT

Parameter names mismatch in ~InterfaceBlock::areConjugated(Property, Property)

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

    The parameter names in the signature of that operation are "p1" and "p2" respectively while "a1" and "a2" are used in the statement of the body condition

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 22 Feb 2021 09:58 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 09:58 GMT

Suggest introduce an operation to obtain the magnitude of a value property in a given compatible Unit (to afford equality comparison)

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

    Spawned from SYSML17-31 to help support comparisons for BindingConnector.

    Suggest introduce an operation to obtain the magnitude of a value property in a given compatible Unit (to afford equality comparison)

    A compatible Unit is any Unit that has the same fundamental Dimensions as the Unit of the value property for which the magnitude is to be obtained. It need not be (but typically would be) from the same Unit system.

    [EDIT: See attached Wolfram Mathematica example with CompatibleUnitQ example]

    Equality of values of value properties at the ends of a BindingConnector can be compared via the proposed operation:

    • The case where the two value properties have the same Unit from the same system is trivial.
    • In the case where the two value properties have compatible Units (same fundamental Dimensions) from the same system but different scaling factors (say g vs kg), a simple scaling must be performed.
    • In the case where the two value properties have compatible Units (same fundamental Dimensions) from different systems (say ft vs km), a conversion and possibly also a scaling must be performed.

    This proposal does not restrict tools to use any particular choice of Unit when performing equality comparisons.

    This proposal specifically only supports comparison of values of value properties with compatible fundamental Dimensions, but does not involve quantity kind.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 14 Jan 2021 22:25 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 06:29 GMT
  • Attachments:

Taken literally the text and OCL of constraint '6_valueproperties_composite' imply that every FlowProperty typed by a ValueType should have AggregationKind 'composite'

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

    Although the name of the constraint 6_valueproperties_composite suggests it is only intended for value properties, the text and OCL of the constraint imply that a FlowProperty typed by a ValueType should also have AggregationKind composite:

    ‘If a property owned by a SysML Block or SysML ValueType is typed by a SysML ValueType, then the aggregation attribute of the property shall be "composite."’

    self.base_Class.ownedAttribute->select(a| ValueType.allInstances().base_DataType ->includes(a.type))->forAll(a|a.isComposite())
    

    Note also that the following specification text on p.53 under 8.3.2.4 Block if taken literally would mean that any FlowProperty typed by a ValueType is a value property:

    'A property typed by a SysML ValueType is classified as a value property, and always has composite aggregation.'

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 14 Jan 2021 01:58 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 21:38 GMT

Property types 'Four general categories of properties of blocks are recognized in SysML ...' does not cover FlowProperty

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

    From SysML-1.6 8.3.1.2.1 Property types p.43 :

    'Four general categories of properties of blocks are recognized in SysML: parts, references, value properties, and constraint properties. (See 8.3.2.4 for definitions of these property types.)'

    Elsewhere 'parts' and 'references' are described as being typed by Blocks, but a FlowProperty typed by a Block is not typically listed in the corresponding compartments.

    A FlowProperty need not be typed by a ValueType, and is not typically understood to be a value property so is not covered by 'value properties' (see however SYSML17-399).

    The same issue arises on p.53 under 8.3.2.4 Block:

    SysML establishes four basic classifications of properties belonging to a SysML Block or ValueType. 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. Constraint properties are further defined in Clause 10. A port is another category of property, as further defined in Section 9. A property typed by a Block that does not have composite aggregation is classified as a reference property. A property typed by a SysML ValueType is classified as a value property, and always has composite aggregation. Part, reference, value, and constraint properties may be shown in block definition compartments with the labels "parts," "references," "values," and "constraints" respectively. Properties of any type may be shown in a "properties" compartment or in additional compartments with user-defined labels.

    Because FlowProperty can be typed by ValueType, Block or Signal it is not covered well by the above; every attempt to handle the cases applied to any of the above results in "definition whack-a-mole"

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 14 Jan 2021 06:34 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 06:34 GMT

InterfaceBlock: OCL constraint 2_no_part is missing FlowProperty check for cases where a FlowProperty is not typed by a ValueType

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

    p.99

    2_no_part

    Interface blocks composite properties are either ports, value properties or flow properties.

    self.base_Class.ownedAttribute->select(a|a.isComposite)->forAll(a |
    a.oclIsKindOf(UML::Port) or a.oclIsKindOf(ValueType))

    EDIT: Needs to also check whether is a FlowProperty of a valid type other than ValueType, noting from SysML-1.6 FlowProperty:

    '1_restricted_types A FlowProperty shall be typed by a ValueType, Block, or Signal.'

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sat, 4 Jul 2020 14:50 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 06:05 GMT

Compartments for Connectors and Participants

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    The Standard is not clear about compartments for Connectors and Participants... it is presumed that since Connectors has a OwnedConnectors in the metamodel in UML... that a "connectors" compartment is implied (but the standard should probably state as much to make sure tools are consistent)... there could also be a <<connector>> compartment according to the standard... so this needs to be consistent... there is nothing about Participants... so presumably they go into "properties" compartment... or a <<participants>> compartment... they are could be references (because they are composite) but one may not want to mix them in with references (I would not want to, but the standard may want to grant a compartment called "participants" for the purpose)

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sat, 31 Oct 2020 16:26 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 16:50 GMT

Suggest not allow an AssociationBlock to type a BindingConnector used for pure proxying

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

    This issue report illustrates two separate (but apparently related) issues:

    DISCLAIMER: The example shown for modelling an electronics jack or socket in electronics is not an approach advocated by this reporter. It is however a frequently used or attempted approach.

    Primary issue: When a BindingConnector used to indicate pure proxying is typed by an AssociationBlock, the AssociationBlock can be used to undermine the claimed equality of the proxy, at least when nested Ports are involved.

    In the attached example, the L and R channels of a stereo system have been swapped by the AssociationBlock (which swapping is invisible at the level of the BindingConnector it types).

    It is proposed that constraint(s) be introduced for BindingConnector and/or AssociationBlocks, along with improved explanations for ParticipantProperty, to prevent the typing of BindingConnectors by AssociationBlocks used for pure proxying.

    (AssociationBlocks are otherwise very useful, it is not suggested here that their use should be otherwise prevented.)

    A 2nd issue was identified by John Brush of 7Sigma. In the situation as modelled, tools report that the innermost BindingConnectors (owned by the AssociationBlock) between the nested Ports have invalid flow directions.

    That issue can be avoided by instead using a non-behavioral Port or a FullPort with additional inner-facing nested Ports to model the jack/socket, however that 2nd issue may be a valid concern for some other modelling cases.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 10 Nov 2020 02:32 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 02:44 GMT

All kinds of errors in Fig. 8-17

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    1. Vehicle should have a compartment labeled "bound references" rather than just "references"
    2. According to constraint 7 in BoundReference
    "BoundReferences shall not be applied to properties that are related by redefinition to other properties with BoundReference applied"
    so Vehicle Model 2 should not have <<boundReference>>, endPathMultiplicity is ok... but should have lower and upper defined for the example
    3. This diagram should be an example of how multiplicity on the property and lower and upper can differ

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 25 Oct 2020 13:36 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 7 Nov 2020 00:45 GMT
  • Attachments:

Figure 8-17: Vehicle specialization: multiple inconsistencies

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

    From SysML-1.6:

    'The specialization on the lower left restricts the number of cylinders to four, requires a light roll bar, and a total of 24 lug bolts over all the wheels. '

    In block Vehicle Model 1:

    • The multiplicity of cylinderBR should be [4] not [*]
    • Multiplicity of rollBarBR should be [1] not [*] and it has no redefined type for the 'light roll bar' (it would also help if the parent block Vehicle and the sub-blocks all showed the types on their properties).
    • Multiplicity of lugBoltBR in the spec figure is [6..8], it should be [6]

    'The specialization on the lower right restricts the number of cylinders to between six and eight, rules out any roll bar, and limits lug bolts per wheel to between 6 and 7, by giving the end path upper and lower values.'

    In block Vehicle Model 1:

    • Multiplicity of rollBarBR should be [0] not [*]
    • EndPathMultiplicity is applied to rollBarBR instead of lugBoltBR
    • It's also not entirely clear (to me) whether the multiplicity of lugBoltBR should be [*].

    The annotated attachment shows an attempt at improving it (but is not offered as a resolution figure).

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 28 Jun 2020 13:55 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 7 Nov 2020 00:37 GMT
  • Attachments:

constraint needed

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    perhaps a specification is needed that says that lower and upper are the same as lower and upper of the multiplicity if they are not specified or not initialized... that way, if tools are asking what is lower and upper they will get something relevant

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 25 Oct 2020 13:42 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:29 GMT

Relationship should be specified for Stakeholder to a View

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:
    • How do you tie a view to a stakeholder, should specify a type of relationship
  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:17 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:26 GMT

Adjunct allows for additional notation on CallBehaviorActions

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    Currently with CallBehaviorActions there is no way to specify that there are only so many instance that can be executed if one has an instance of an Activity... if that action is marked as isReentrant=true.. but with adjuncts one can specify that an adjunct property has multiplicity (which restricts min/max number of instances)... it would be nice if that could also be shown on an Activity diagram by allowing multiplicities in the upper right corner of an appropriate Action that specifies these multiplicities

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 26 Oct 2020 21:18 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:39 GMT

What are redefined BoundReferences

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    What compartment does a property go into that redefines a BoundReference... note that such a property can not be stereotyped as BoundReference so presumably, it can not go into that compartment... so is it a reference? (but it does not fit the definition because it is not the end of an association)... there is just the properties compartment...

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 25 Oct 2020 18:57 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:39 GMT

EndPathMultiplicity and BoundReference Ordered and Unique

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    BoundReference is ordered and nonunique... this is not the default and should be shown in the diagrams...
    Since EndPathMultiplicity is a redefine of BoundReference if it is applied by itself... then each
    EndPathMultiplicity has to also be ordered and nonunique... this should be explained... and should be a constraint in EndPathMultiplicity

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 25 Oct 2020 15:07 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:38 GMT

Lower and Upper Explained

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    I believe the reason Lower and Upper were added into the standard was to allow for multiplicities that did not follow the multiplicity rules of the standard... I have an example... and I think an example should be in the standard to clarify this mystifying need for lower and upper... because it is not clear really why they are needed...

    suppose I have the following
    part1[3..4]
    part2[3..7]
    part3[4..6]

    and I want to bind a BoundReferece x to part1.part2.part3 in block y... now I can take several approaches...
    1. <<boundReference>> x:Part3 [*[ - this removes the double maintenance problem when multiplicities of the paths change does not restrict anything
    2. <<boundReference>> x:Part3 [36..168] - this mimics the multiplicities of the path, so really no restriction
    3. <<boundReference>> x:Part3 [2..10] - this restricts the number of part3s that there can be at the end of that path

    option 3 could have also been specified as
    <<boundReference>> x:Part3 [*]

    {lower=2,upper=10}

    now block z specializes block x and I have another property a such that
    <<endPathMultiplicity>> a:Part3[*[

    {redefines x,lower=5,upper=20}

    but this only works if x has multiplicity * otherwise
    <<endPathMultiplicity>> a:Part3 [5..20[

    {redefines x}

    if x is <<boundReference>> x:Part3 [2..10] does not work
    because 5..20 is not a restriction of 2..10

    This is why lower and upper can be different (but constrained by) the multiplicity

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 25 Oct 2020 14:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:38 GMT

Lower and Upper are constrained

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    There should be a constraint in EndPathMultiplicity which states that Lower is no less than the lower on the multiplicity and that upper is no greater than the upper on the multiplicity

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 25 Oct 2020 13:38 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:37 GMT

Statement about EndPathMultiplicity

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    constraint 1 in EndPathMultipliticity
    "Properties to which EndPathMultiplicity is applied shall be related by redefinition to a property to which BoundReference is applied."
    and constraint 7 in BoundReference says
    "BoundReferences shall not be applied to properties that are related by redefinition to other properties with BoundReference applied"

    so if there is a endPathMultiplicity applied... it must be to a property, not a BoundReference, but to one redefining a boundReference
    ... this should be explicitly stated in the standard... otherwise it is not obvious

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 25 Oct 2020 13:29 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:36 GMT

BoundReference Specificity

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    A BoundReferrence must be more general in multiplicity than the property it binds to... but there is nothing in the constraints that specify this... the lower and upper limit the number in that specific Type

    Also, the best practice for BoundReference is to make its multiplicity * so there is not the double maintenance issue if any multiplicity changes along the path it is bound to... this should be specified

    Also, specify that lower, upper of BoundReference restricts the multiplicity of the property it is bound to... and there should be example showing how the multiplicity of BoundReference can be different than the values of lower,upper and why

    also, the statement "Properties to which BoundReference is applied shall be the role of a connector end of at least one binding connector, or generalized by such a property through redefinition" especially "or generalized by such a property through redefinition" is not clear as to what is being generalized

    also, an example of when nonuniqueness would come into play would be good in the standard

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 25 Oct 2020 13:26 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:36 GMT

BoundReference Diagram is wrong

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    Block1 should have two compartments one reference and one bound reference (for property11)... property11 in Block2 is not correct as a redefine because it widens rather than restricts the multiplicity of property11 in Block1...property11 in block1 would need to have a multiplicity of *

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 25 Oct 2020 13:12 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:35 GMT

Unclear English Statement

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    The OCL is probably clear but the English is not...

    4_same_owner
    Properties with AdjunctProperty applied shall be owned by an element that owns the principal, at least indirectly, or one of that elements specializations.

    could be read as "Properties with AdjunctProperty applied shall be owned by a specialization of the element that owns the principal"

    or "Properties with AdjunctProperty applied shall be owned by an element whose specialization owns the principal"

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 1 Oct 2020 23:37 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:30 GMT

Incorrect description of SysMLBlockDefinitionDiagram

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Mentor, a Siemens Business ( Fabien Launay)
  • Summary:

    Description mentions SysMLBlockDefinitionDiagram stereotype extends UMLPackageDiagram whereas it extends UMLClassDiagram according to Figure B.3 page 219.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Fri, 27 Mar 2020 06:00 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 00:35 GMT

Derived attribute should also be read only

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

    In the xmi file representing the profile, that can be found here:
    ptc/2015-07-05 http://www.omg.org/spec/SysML/20150709/SysML.xmi

    The derived attributes should also be set to read-only:
    <ownedAttribute xmi:id="SysML.package_packagedElement_Requirements.stereotype_packagedElement_Requirement_ownedAttribute.master" xmi:uuid="org.omg.sysml.SysML.package_packagedElement_Requirements.stereotype_packagedElement_Requirement_ownedAttribute.master" xmi:type="uml:Property">
    <name>master</name>
    <isDerived>true</isDerived>
    ...
    </ownedAttribute>

    In Papyrus SysML 1.1 version, the derived attributes have been set to read-only.
    It will be the same for SysML 1.4 implementation. See https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/71034/2/core/org.eclipse.papyrus.sysml14/resources/profile/SysML.profile.uml

    It would be good to provide for SysML 1.5 either the profile with readonly or specify in the norm what should be implemented for the write access

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:42 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 00:35 GMT

SysML primitive value types

  • Key: SYSML17-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15882
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    We have issues with SysML primitive value types - Real, Integer, Boolean, String etc.

    The problem is that these types are not inherited from corresponding UML primitive types - Real, Integer, Boolean, String.
    That means, UML tool can't understand, what kind of ValueSpecification should be created for values of properties typed by these value types.
    Should it be LiteralString or LiteralInteger or OpaqueExpression?
    Constraints can't check if slot values are compatible with property types, as it is not clear what kind of value specification it should be also.
    There are issues in parametrics solving also, as values must be compatible with property types.

    I think, SysML primitives must be directly inherited from UML primitives - Real subtype of UML Real, String subtype of UML String etc.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 8 Dec 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 00:35 GMT
  • Attachments:

Figure 9-5 and 9-4 are the same

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

    Figure 9-5 (Item Flow Stereotype) is the same as Figure 9-4 (Provided and Required Features).

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 5 Mar 2020 15:39 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 00:35 GMT
  • Attachments:

SysML: Protocol State Machines needed

  • Key: SYSML17-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10047
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 00:35 GMT

Make Annex E Optional but Normative

  • Status: open  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Manfred Koethe)
  • Summary:

    Currently Annex E of the SysML spec is called "Non-Normative Extensions" and marked "Informative". However, the content of Annex E is widely implemented and used, and recently also referred to by other submissions as normative reference. It would therefore make much sense to make the Annex E normative, but optional (via a Compliance clause). This would still leave implementers the freedom to implement Annex E, or to ignore it. However, if implemented, then it must precisely follow the specification. This would improve interoperability and exchangeability of the Annex E items, and would make the content of Annex E referable by other submission.

    To achieve this change, the Annex E title and Overview sub-clause need to be changed, and an additional bullet point inserted into Clause 5.2:

    "Optional extension conformance. A tool may implement the specifications of Annex E in its entirety, or implement selected specifications from Annex E at the discretion of the tool implementer. If so, then any implementation must follow the specifications provided by Annex E exactly."

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 29 Sep 2020 23:10 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 00:44 GMT

Stereotype Rate extends ObjectNode in the XMI, but not in the abstract syntax in the specification

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

    According to figure 11.8, the stereotype Rate extends UML4SysML::Parameter and UML4SysML::ActivityEdge.

    In SysML.xmi, you can find a third extension of UML4SysML::ObjectNode. The Association Ends section in the specification also lists the ObjectNode extension:

    Association Ends
    • base_ActivityEdge : ActivityEdge [0..1]
    • base_ObjectNode : ObjectNode [0..1]
    • base_Parameter : Parameter [0..1]

    The diagram table in the activity chapter provides a concrete syntax for object nodes with stereotype Rate applied.

    Besides that, the extension of ObjectNode is not mentioned in the specification.

    If it is correct, that Rate extends ObjectNode:

    • Add extension in figure 11.8.
    • Provide semantic

    If it is not correct:

    • Remove extension from XMI and association ends section
    • Remove concrete syntax from diagram table
  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 14 Nov 2019 16:26 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 15:56 GMT

BindingConnector end s multiplicity

  • Key: SYSML17-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11333
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:38 GMT

Issue: Nested connector ends

  • Key: SYSML17-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11276
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:25 GMT

Timing diagrams

  • Key: SYSML17-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10642
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 13:15 GMT

Figure E.6 QUDV Units Diagram display exactly the same content as Figure E.5 QUDV Concepts Diagram

  • Status: open  
  • Source: KARL STORZ SE & Co. KG ( Marting Bohring)
  • Summary:

    In Version SysML 1.5 the QUDV Units diagram presented the other Unit Types. In Version SysML 1.6 the Units Diagram displays the same content as the Concepts Diagram.
    AS a result the Units Diagram of SysML Version 1.5 has disappeared

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 15 Jul 2020 11:50 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:50 GMT

Typos/editorials found in the SysML 1.6 specification document

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

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:40 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 12:45 GMT

The 'initialValues' compartment needs to be renamed 'contextValues' and they need to be referred to as 'context-specific values'

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

    I have never liked the term 'initial values' or the compartment name 'initialValues' for what were originally called 'context-specific values'.

    I propose instead they be called 'context-specific values' because that is what they in fact are (values within the context of a top-level configuration block), and a compartment 'contextValues'.

    In most cases the values as used have nothing to do with "initial". Even the spec example Figure D.41 has nothing to do with initial, it is about a test configuration.

    I helped supervise development and testing of this feature many years ago in the MagicDraw tool (along with Nerijus at No Magic). It was the first tool to implement the feature. Back then we referred to the feature as context-specific values (and it used to be called that in the tool menu).

    I have been using this feature a lot for some years with real world clients. Nearly all of them find the term 'initialValues' completely confusing, especially after just having been introduced to the 'defaultValue' concept.

    Case: Am using SysML for a construction group. They use initialValues to describe multiple "deep" configurations of buildings in different modes and customer configurations. They find the term initialValues completely confusing.

    Case: The mobile phone initialValues sample available for MagicDraw/Cameo is in fact a "deep" configuration example (and an excellent one) and has nothing to do with "initial values".

    I also have a course session dedicated to how to use this feature for "deep" configuration of systems. Attendees find the term 'initialValues' completely confusing, I tell them to call it 'contextValues' instead.

    And as for time? If you want to use the feature to show the value state of a system at different times: t0, t1, t2, t3 in different block contexts you can't; because the compartment name 'initialValues' makes it sound like every time slice is the initial time t0.

    It truly has to go. It does not work. The compartment name 'contextValues' works for all cases.

    I have even taken to "painting over" the term 'initialValues' in some diagrams.

    This SysML feature/capability itself is extremely important and useful; it's an absolutely critical extension over UML.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 28 Jun 2020 00:41 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 17:11 GMT

Suggest primary/replica as alternative to master/slave terminology for Copy relationship

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

    Suggest primary/replica as alternative to master/slave terminology for Copy relationship.

    The term 'slave' appears on p.181:

    The use of namespace containment to specify requirements hierarchies precludes reusing requirements in different contexts since a given model element can only exist in one namespace. Since the concept of requirements reuse is very important in many applications, SysML introduces the concept of a slave requirement. A slave requirement is a requirement whose text property is a read-only copy of the text property of a master requirement. The text property of the slave requirement is constrained to be the same as the text property of the related master requirement. The master/slave relationship is indicated by the use of the copy relationship.

    And p.188:

    getMaster () : AbstractRequirement [0..*]
    bodyCondition: Copy.allInstances()->select(base_Abstraction.client=self).base_Abstraction.supplier

    p.189

    A Copy dependency created between two requirements maintains a master/slave relationship between the two elements for the purpose of requirements re-use in different contexts.

    The change would also require changing all references to '/master' to '/primary'.

    In 2014 Drupal CMS adopted the term primary/replica.

    The terminology master/slave has recently been removed from the Python language.

    There are some other options recently adopted by technology companies, but they do not play as nicely with the Copy relationship as 'primary/replica'.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 6 Jul 2020 09:24 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 09:24 GMT

SysML-1.6: Refers to both 'composite requirement' and 'compound requirement'

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

    p.181

    16.1 Overview
    ...
    A composite requirement can contain subrequirements in terms of a requirements hierarchy, specified using the UML namespace containment mechanism. This relationship enables a complex requirement to be decomposed into its containing child requirements. A composite requirement ..

    p.191

    16.3.2.5 Requirement
    ...

    Compound requirements can be created by using the nesting capability of the class definition mechanism. The default interpretation of a compound requirement, unless stated differently by the compound requirement itself, is that all its subrequirements shall be satisfied for the compound requirement to be satisfied.
    ...

    Might be best to choose just one term 'compound requirement' or 'composite requirement

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 5 Jul 2020 14:00 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 5 Jul 2020 14:01 GMT

BindingConnector constraint 1_compatible_types: Use of OCL conformsTo contradicts definition of compatibility of connected ProxyPort, does not admit per Feature compatibility or compatibility via a union of connected features

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

    EDIT: from SysML-1.6 p.52:

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

    SysML-1.6 p.52 states:

    1_compatible_types

    The two ends of a binding connector shall have either the same type or types that are compatible so that equality of their values can be defined.

    self.base_Connector.end->at(1).role.type.conformsTo(self.base_Connector.end
     ->at(2).role.type) or self.base_Connector.end
     ->at(2).role.type.conformsTo(self.base_Connector.end->at(1).role.type)
    

    OCL-1.4 states concerning conformsTo:

    8.2.1 Type Conformance

    The type conformance rules are formally underpinned in the Semantics sub clause of the specification. To ensure that the rules are accessible to UML modelers they are specified in this sub clause using OCL. For this, the additional operation conformsTo(c : Classifier) : Boolean is defined on Classifier. It evaluates to true, if the self Classifier conforms to the
    argument c.

    ...

    [2] Classes conform to superclasses and interfaces that they realize.
    context Class
    inv : self.generalization.general->forAll (p |
    (p.oclIsKindOf(Class) or p.oclIsKindOf(Interface)) implies
    self.conformsTo(p.oclAsType(Classifier)))
    

    As far as this submitter can tell, there is no sense in which OCL conformsTo is not Type-based at the level of a Classifier.

    This renders numerous desirable ProxyPort connection scenarios invalid.

    Case: A ProxyPort of InterfaceBlock type PP1 and an internal part property of block type Standalone, where PP1 and StandalonePart have identical Feature signatures, but do not share a Type relationship.

    From SysML-1.6 p.52:

    9.3.2.13 ProxyPort

    ...

    When a proxy port is connected to a single internal part, the connector shall be a binding connector, or have the same semantics as a binding connector (the value of the proxy port and the connected internal part are the same; links of associations typing the connector are between all objects and themselves, and no others).

    Whether one uses a BindingConnector or a Connector with the same semantics, the reported constraint renders the Connection from proxy port :PP1 to internal part :Standalone invalid, even though all Features match, because there is no type "value" equivalence.

    Consider now from p.103:

    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.

    ASIDE: The spec could make clearer in the above whether the Connectors that are used for such multiple connections are NOT BindingConnectors

    An attempt to work around it using multiple Connectors from the proxy port :PP1 to at least all of the Property features of internal part :Standalone - which are themselves 'parts' in the UML sense - also leads to a contradiction w.r.t:

    the connectors have the same semantics as a single binding connector to an aggregate of those parts, supporting all their features ..

    The attempt was to aggregate the Property features themselves, not their features.

    And even if the above were to work, it does not address the compatibility with Operations, and is also highly impractical in tools when there are many Properties to bind (collect).

    The complexity and number of possible contradictions explodes when indeed connections are made to multiple parts.

    What is needed is a completely different definition of compatibility that is not bound in any way to types, but primarily to matching Features (including Operations, Receptions and Properties) by "collecting" the Features via Connectors to their owners.

    This would then support common engineering scenarios where subsets of Features of internal parts are aggregated and then "exported" via a single exposed Port.

    This would greatly reduce the number of Connectors needed, and would make validation in tools much easier. Type-based compatibility can still be kept, but it is just a special case of Feature-wise compatibility.

    The Property features of internal part :Standalone clearly count as 'multiple internal parts'. Assuming regular Connectors are used (but not BindingConnectors) from proxy port :PP1 to every Property of internal part :Standalone

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 5 Jul 2020 09:28 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 5 Jul 2020 11:34 GMT

9.3.2.13 ProxyPort 'When a proxy port is connected to a single internal part ...' extend to include ' or port on an internal part'

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

    p.103

    Proxy ports can be connected to internal parts or ports on internal parts, identifying features on those parts or ports that are available to external blocks.

    And:

    When a proxy port is connected to a single internal part, the connector shall be a binding connector, or have the same semantics as a binding connector ...

    The 2nd sentence would more consistent if it included ' or port on an internal part' thus:

    When a proxy port is connected to a single internal part or port on an internal part, the connector shall be a binding connector, or have the same semantics as a binding connector ...

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 5 Jul 2020 08:45 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 5 Jul 2020 08:45 GMT

Owned properties of an InterfaceBlock

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

    Split from SYSML16-86:

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 07:43 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 4 Jul 2020 14:51 GMT

SysML-1.6: text on Requirement 'Test and procedure conditions' is mangled in 'Figure 16-2: Requirements Derivation' (was OK in SysML-1.5) [also affects Figure 16-6]

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

    Figure 16-2: Requirements Derivation

    In SysML-1.5 Requirement text was:

    (a) IBT: <= 65 °C (149 °F), <= 100 °C (212 °F). (b) Test surface: PFC of at least 0.9.

    In SysML-1.6 p.195 Requirement text does not have comparison operators.

    Tested in Adobe Reader and Mac Preview on a Mac.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:54 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:16 GMT
  • Attachments:

'Figure 16-2: Requirements Derivation' indeed shows DeriveReqt but spec text refers to it as 'an example of a compound requirement'

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

    p.195

    SysML-1.6: Figure 16-2: Requirements Derivation indeed shows DeriveReqt examples, but the spec text refers to it as 'an example of a compound requirement'.

    Either: The spec text needs to say is also an example of DeriveReqt

    Or: The figure needs to be renamed to something like: Figure 16-2: Requirements Derivation and compound requirements

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 2 Jul 2020 09:05 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:15 GMT

'Figure 9-6: Usage example of ports with provided and required features' does not expose any directed features

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

    All the diagram shows is some port types and their conjugated types.

    It would be more instructive if the ports on the diagram used the capability to show the underlying directed features of the blocks that type the ports.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 29 Jun 2020 05:54 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:04 GMT

SysML-1.6 does not leverage redefinition of 'sp:Surface' on 'Figure 9-7: Usage example of proxy and full ports'. And does not show direction of flows on Ports symbols

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

    SysML-1.6 spec figure 'Figure 9.7 - Usage example of proxy and full ports'.

    Does not leverage redefinition of sp:Surface, which is shown as redefined in many blocks but nothing is actually redefined.

    Some earlier spec versions did leverage the redefinition, see also the attachment for similar done in a tool.

    Also, it does not show direction of flows on the ports (but this notation is optional).

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 29 Jun 2020 06:36 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:04 GMT

Figure 9-16 and Figure 9-17 'Usage example of item flow decomposition': multiple inconsistencies

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

    p.115:

    Figures 9.16 and 9.17 are examples of item flow decomposition that modelers might choose...

    Should be 'Figures 9-16 and 9-17'

    p.115:

    In Figure 9-16, the item flow classifier (EnginePart) is a supertype of the classifiers of the item flows in the decomposition. The flow properties are all in the types of the nested ports ...

    But it does not show those flow properties in the lower BDD (compare with attachment 1).

    It would make sense to show the flow property direction indicators in the structure compartment of A1 in the lower BDD.

    Minor/optional: If the parent ports do not have any flow properties in this example, it might be better to not show the flow direction indicator in the parent port in Figure 9-16, even though the flow direction for each nested port within each parent port is in the same direction. Then, for contrast, the flow direction indicators can be shown on the parent ports of Figure 9-17, noting they have explicit flow properties.

    p.115 and p.116:

    In Figure 9-17, the item flow classifier (Engine) composes the classifiers of the items flows in the decomposition from Figure 9-17.

    This should probably be 'from Figure 9-16'.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 30 Jun 2020 00:29 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:04 GMT

The ControlValue input to Monitor Traction without a Pin is invalid in 'Figure 11-10: Continuous system example 1' and multiple issues with ControlOperator

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

    p.147 Figure 11-10: Continuous system example 1 shows an object flow with an object token of type ControlValue (should probably be ControlValueKind) from a ControlOperator Enable on Brake Pressure > 0 to Monitor Traction.

    The notation shown is consistent with UML-2.5.1 "elided Pin" notation:

    'An object flow is notated by an arrowed line. In Figure 15.9, upper right, the two object flow arrows denote a single object flow edge between two pins in the underlying model, as shown in the lower middle of the figure.'

    The relevant UML-2.5.1 Figure 15.9 ObjectFlow notations is attached.

    Please note how it describes the notation as two object flow arrows (notational symbols that do not correspond one-to-one to ActivityEdge elements, but rather to one ObjectFlow edge). Note also how it says there are two Pins in the underlying model.

    At least one tool implements this notation incorrectly and uses 2 ObjectFlows and a CentralBufferNode instead of two arrows and a rectangular symbol representing any ObjectNode sub-type

    SysML-1.6 p.146 states:

    Brake pressure information also flows to a control operator that outputs a control value to enable or disable the Monitor Traction behavior. No pins are used on Monitor Traction, so once it is enabled, the continuously arriving enable control values from the control operator have no effect, per UML semantics.

    It is not permissible in UML-2.5.1 to have 'No pins used on Monitor Traction'. And if there were no Pins, it is not clear how {contro\l} is indicated in Figure 11-10, because, from UML-2.5.1:

    Control Pins are shown with the textual annotation {control} placed near the Pin symbol.

    If there are 'No pins used on Monitor Traction' the {control} notation can't be supported.

    Further: SysML-1.6 p.127 states:

    A control value is an input or output of a control operator ..

    If there is any sense in which it can be "input" to another type of Action (the controlled one), this should also be stated.

    On SysML-1.6 p.140 it is not made clear what 'control parameters' are:

    Pins for control parameters are regular pins, not UML control pins.

    If they are parameters of a Behavior with the ControlOperator stereotype applied this should be clearly stated. Otherwise, the (necesssary) {control} input Pin required on Monitor Traction in Figure 11-10 could be considered to have an underlying "control parameter" that contradicts the above rule.

    A partial solution (apart from suggested expansions of the explanatory text) would be to at least use an explicit {control} Pin on Monitor Traction and remove the claim that it has no Pins.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 30 Jun 2020 10:09 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:03 GMT
  • Attachments:

Edge for [else] in 'Figure 11-11: Continuous system example 2' should be an ObjectFlow not a ControlFlow

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

    The edge for the [else] in 'Figure 11-11: Continuous system example 2' should be an ObjectFlow not a ControlFlow (it is currently dashed):

    From UML-2.5.1:

    edges

    The ActivityEdges incoming to and outgoing from a DecisionNode, other than the decisionInputFlow (if any), must be either all ObjectFlows or all ControlFlows.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:49 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:03 GMT

Suggest additional main body figure illustrating context-specific values (initialValues) compartment used for deep system configuration

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

    It has been suggested that sample Figure D.41 should not be an IBD but a BDD with objects (instances).

    A new spec example (not related to Annex D Hybrid SUV problem) is then required.

    Suggest use mobile phone camera configuration example (known to me and a tool vendor).

    Submitter willing to provide spec-friendly diagram(s) and supporting spec text.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:18 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:01 GMT

Inconsistent incoming ObjectFlow and outgoing ControlFlows on the DecisionNode in Figure 11.12 - Continuous system example 3 'Enable on Brake Pressure > 0'

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

    The 'Figure 11.12 - Continuous system example 3' for the Activity 'Enable on Brake Pressure > 0' shows a single incoming ObjectFlow from the ActivityParameterNode pressure : Brake Pressure to a DecisionNode with two outgoing ControlFlows (shown dashed) with guards vs Brake Pressure.

    It is not indicated whether the incoming ObjectFlow is a DecisionNode::decisionInputFlow. Assuming it is or is not both lead to contradictions vs the UML-2.5.1 spec.

    First, assume that is it not a decisionInputFlow. Then according to UML-2.5.1 it is then the primary incoming edge:

    A DecisionNode shall have at least one and at most two incoming ActivityEdges, and at least one outgoing ActivityEdge. If it has two incoming edges, then one shall be identified as the decisionInputFlow, the other being called the primary incoming edge. If the DecisionNode has only one incoming edge, then it is the primary incoming edge.

    But this means the reported figure immediately contradicts:

    If the primary incoming edge of a DecisionNode is a ControlFlow, then all outgoing edges shall be ControlFlows and, if the primary incoming edge is an ObjectFlow, then all outgoing edges shall be ObjectFlows.

    Because in the reported figure clearly there is a mix of a single incoming ObjectFlow and 2 outgoing ControlFlows.

    Let us then instead assume that the incoming ObjectFlow is a decisionInputFlow. The UML spec then seems to require that there be an additional ControlFlow (that is not present in the reported figure).

    Some related UML-2.5.1 spec quotes and constraints:

    edges
    The ActivityEdges incoming to and outgoing from a DecisionNode, other than the decisionInputFlow (if any), must be either all ObjectFlows or all ControlFlows.

    incoming_outgoing_edges
    A DecisionNode has one or two incoming ActivityEdges and at least one outgoing ActivityEdge.

    decisionInputFlow : ObjectFlow [0..1] (opposite A_decisionInputFlow_decisionNode::decisionNode)
    An additional ActivityEdge incoming to the DecisionNode that provides a decision input value for the guards ValueSpecifications on ActivityEdges outgoing from the DecisionNode.

    If the primary incoming edge of a DecisionNode is an ObjectFlow, and the DecisionNode does not have a decisionInput or decisionInputFlow, then the value contained in an incoming object token may be used in the evaluation of the guards on outgoing ObjectFlows.

    This is clearly not consistent with the reported figure, which has outgoing ControlFlows.

    The following seems to imply that decisionInputFlow is always accompanied by another incoming edge, but this is not (as far as I can tell) made explicit elsewhere as a constraint:

    If a DecisionNode has a decisionInputFlow, then a token must be offered on both the primary incoming edge and the decisionInputFlow before the token from the primary incoming edge is offered to the outgoing edges.

    [ASIDE: The UML-2.5.1 might be inconsistent when referring to 'incoming' w.r.t. decisionInputFlow (but this does not explain away the inconsistency in the reported SysML spec figure). The DecisionNode::decisionInputFlow does not subset ActivityNode::incoming:ActivityEdge[0..*], but it is sometimes referred to as an incoming edge.]

    An additional consideration is why outgoing ControlFlows are being used in the first place. The UML-2.5.1 does not seem to explicitly reject the use of incoming ObjectFlows on a ValueSpecification (although at least one tools declares InputPins on them to be invalid). It is not clear to this reporter that ObjectFlows with Probability could not be used to activate the ValueSpecifications for enable/disable (even though the reported spec figure for this version seems to have been changed to used dashed-line ControlFlows, compared with previous SysML spec versions).

    [EDIT:DK: Axel explained: 'ValueSpecificationActions can in fact have no InputPins (the attribute input is a derived union and ValueSpecificationActions don't define a subset of it).']

    It seems to this reporter that there are 2 solutions to the reported inconsistency:

    1. Somehow use an additional ControlFlow to the DecisionNode, and declare the existing Brake Pressure incoming ObjectFlow to be a decisionInputFlow.

    2. "Revert" the outgoing edges to be ObjectFlows [NOT permitted]

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 15 Jun 2020 04:47 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 12:58 GMT

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

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

    The title of the section is:

    15.4.1 Behavior Allocation of Actions to Parts and Activities to Blocks

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

    From p. 177:

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

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

    The allocation to Activity6 comes from a nested part ..

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • The path callout in the Note for the allocatedTo on Activity6 in the tool is '«part» Block4::Block7::part7'; the spec has '«part» Block4.Part5.Part7'
    • The tool could not (as far as I can tell) display the qualified name corresponding to Part:Block1 for the header in a swimlane
  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 1 Jul 2020 03:34 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 12:58 GMT
  • Attachments:

Figures 15.5 and 15.6 diagram types

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 12:57 GMT

'Figure 15-7: Example of flow allocation from ObjectNode to FlowProperty' does not allocate to a FlowProperty and multiple other minor issues

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

    In SysML-1.6 p.179: Figure 15-7: Example of flow allocation from ObjectNode to FlowProperty

    The diagram does not show any allocation to a FlowProperty.

    Also:

    • It does not show the allocatedFrom for 'Action2' on Block7
    • It does not make sense naming the BDD 'Block0' if that block is not shown in the diagram

    There are allocations from Actions (usage level) to Blocks (definition level); whether that is an error is a matter of opinion, as it would seem SysML permits it. I suggest, however, that the spec figures completely avoid such "cross-level" allocations in the spec figures.

    May I once again suggest (plead, beg) diagram submitters to not (never ever again) use the infamous "elided Pin notation" for ObjectNode anywhere in the spec, as it is widely misunderstood and the tool support for it is poor (broken).

    An example diagram in the MagicDraw tool including explicit Pins is included. The naming conventions is different from the spec figures.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 1 Jul 2020 11:20 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 12:57 GMT

Fig D.41 should be bdd with instance specs & slot values, not ibd with default values

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

    Figure D.41 is unchanged from SysML 1.0. The purpose of the figure was to illustrate how part serial numbers can be handled in SysML, but it was created without any practical experience in instance specification slot values. Instance slot values provide a more concrete representation of instance-level values such as serial numbers. A serial number should never be treated as a default value, because each serial number needs to be unique.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 1 Jul 2020 17:13 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:19 GMT

the use of <> is still unclear and inconsistent

  • Key: SYSML17-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10500
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:18 GMT

SysML: UML Qualified Associations

  • Key: SYSML17-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10048
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:17 GMT

SysML-1.6: DeriveReqt: OCL constraint directions client vs supplier

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

    p.190: please check OCL directions:

    1_supplier_is_requirement

    The supplier shall be an element stereotyped by a subtype of
    AbstractRequirement.AbstractRequirement.allInstances().base_NamedElement->includesAll(self.base_Abstraction.client)

    2_client_is_requirement

    The client shall be an element stereotyped by a subtype of
    AbstractRequirement.AbstractRequirement.allInstances().base_NamedElement->includesAll(self.base_Abstraction.supplier)

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 2 Jul 2020 09:45 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 09:45 GMT

Trivial: consistency: Either show the [metaclass] on all Stereotype symbols or none in 'Figure 16-1: Abstract Syntax for Requirements Stereotypes'

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

    The Stereotype symbols for AbstractRequirement and Requirement show their [metaclass], the others do not.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 1 Jul 2020 13:39 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 13:39 GMT

Figure 15.8 diagram type


Figure B.35 object nodes


Annex B / Figure B.35


Figure B.34 and Figure B.35

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

    FigureB34 shows an Activity decomposition with:

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

    FigureB35 shows:

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

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Tue, 1 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 12:10 GMT

Don't use the optional notation for Pins with Allocation

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

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

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 12:08 GMT

Figure D.24 Parametric Diagram does not explicitly show «equal» keyword or '=' on BindingConnectors

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

    If the Connectors in the Figure D.24 'Defining Fuel Flow Constraints (Parametric Diagram)' are BindingConnectors suggest explicitly show «equal» keyword or '='.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 00:13 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 07:04 GMT

Typo: 'not' should be 'nor' in '... not is this always even desirable'

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

    From p.174:

    It is acknowledged that this concept does not support a standard object-oriented paradigm, not is this always even desirable.

    The 'not' should probably be 'nor'

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 04:24 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 06:46 GMT

Typo: references to FuelTankAssy should be FuelTankAssembly for consistency with Figure D.25

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

    p.254:

    The Fuel store represents a quantity of fuel in the FuelTankAssy, which is drawn by the FuelPump for use in the engine, and is refreshed, to some degree, by fuel returning to the FuelTankAssy via the FuelReturnLine.

    Figure D.25 has FuelTankAssembly.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 04:03 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 06:46 GMT

Typo: 'Various other model elements may be necessary to help develop a derived requirement, and these model element' plural missing

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

    Plural missing in:

    'Various other model elements may be necessary to help develop a derived requirement, and these model element may be related by a «refinedBy» relationship.'

    Should be:

    'Various other model elements may be necessary to help develop a derived requirement, and these model element*s* may be related by a «refinedBy» relationship.'

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 17 Jun 2020 22:22 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 06:46 GMT

Typo: Missing end parentheses bracket: '(described in D.4.3 Elaborating Behavior (Sequence and State Machine Diagrams)'

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

    SysML-1.6 p.249:

    Note that the interactions DriveBlackBox and Stac4rtVehicleBlackBox (described in D.4.3 Elaborating Behavior (Sequence and State Machine Diagrams), are depicted as owned by the AutomotiveDomain block.

    There is a missing end ')'

    (The issue with 'Stac4rtVehicleBlackBox' already caught under SYSML17-271)

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 21 Jun 2020 02:57 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 06:46 GMT

Typo: 'with is owned by the AutomotiveDomain block.'

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

    This diagram represents the “DriveBlackBox” interaction, with is owned by the AutomotiveDomain block.

    Should be:

    This diagram represents the “DriveBlackBox” interaction, which is owned by the AutomotiveDomain block.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 17 Jun 2020 00:11 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 06:46 GMT

Need Connector from fuel:Fuel to :FuelPump in 'Figure D.25 Detailed Internal Structure of Fuel Delivery Subsystem (Internal Block Diagram)'

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

    Need Connector from fuel:Fuel to :FuelPump in 'Figure D.25 Detailed Internal Structure of Fuel Delivery Subsystem (Internal Block Diagram)'

    This is implied by p.254:

    The Fuel store represents a quantity of fuel in the FuelTankAssy, which is drawn by the FuelPump for use in the engine ...

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 03:41 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 06:46 GMT

Naming inconsistencies 'Figure D.24 is a parametric diagram showing how fuel flowrate is related to FuelDemand and FuelPressure value properties.'

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

    From SysML-1.6 p.254:

    Figure D.24 is a parametric diagram showing how fuel flowrate is related to FuelDemand and FuelPressure value properties.

    The Figure D.24 shows these value properties: 'fuelFlowRate', 'fuelDemand' and 'fuelPressure' (all lowerCamelCase). The text does not match those value property names.

    The Figure D.24 shows these bound constraint parameters: 'flow rate' (with a space), 'injectorDemand' and 'press'. Suggest also constraint parameter 'flow rate' should be consistently named in the diagram 'flowRate' (no space and lowerCamelCase).

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 02:10 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 06:45 GMT

Figure D.23 has FuelFlow stereotyped by the DEPRECATED «flowSpecification»

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

    Figure D.23 has FuelFlow stereotyped by the DEPRECATED «flowSpecification»

    Known already to Marlin and Rick

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 22 Jun 2020 07:40 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 06:45 GMT

'Figure D.7 - Elaborating Black Box Behavior' some OCL missing, State names in oclInState() should be capital first letter, and display of name of alt fragment

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

    Figure D.7 Elaborating Black Box Behavior for the “Drive the Vehicle” Use Case (Sequence Diagram)

    The OCL for the ref fragment for Idle appears to be missing in the SysML 1.6 figure version (was present in the SysML 1.5 version).

    The referenced State name should have capital first letters to match the States in Figure D.1. From OCL-1.4:

    The operation oclIsInState(s) results in true if the object is in the state s. Possible states for the operation oclIsInState(s) are all states of the statemachine that defines the classifier's behavior. ...

    [EDIT: Actually, SysML-1.6 makes explicit that the Interaction DriveBlackBox is owned by the AutomotiveDomain block,
    so the ‘self’ won’t be the same context as for the StateMachine (so it might not be able to reference those States directly).]

    The name of the alt fragment 'controlSpeed' does not appear in the SysML-1.6 figure (it did in SysML-1.5 ). This may be deliberate. And it can't (as far as I can tell) be shown in MagicDraw/Cameo anyway. But it's a bit confusing when referenced here:

    The conditions for each alternative in the alt controlSpeed sub clause are expressed in OCL, and relate to the states of the HybridSUV block, as shown in Figure D.8.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 17 Jun 2020 01:25 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 06:45 GMT

SysML-1.6: Figure D.25 has the type Fuel for both an in Port and an out Port on FuelTankAssembly (and it is not ideal to have same name as the Classifier that flows)

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

    Figure D.25 Detailed Internal Structure of Fuel Delivery Subsystem (Internal Block Diagram)

    Has the type Fuel for both an in Port and an out Port on FuelTankAssembly

    And it is not ideal to have same name Fuel as the Classifier Fuel that flows.

    I happen to use the prefix convention F_ for Ports that have flows (only) of one Classifier, so in this case F_Fuel and ~F_Fuel

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:36 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 06:44 GMT

7.3.2.3 Expose refers to 'The method' without referencing Viewpoint

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

    7.3.2.3 Expose

    ...
    The view and the model elements related to the view are passed to the constructor when it is invoked. The method describes how the exposed elements are navigated to extract the desired information.

    Although it is explained (somewhat) under 7.1.1. View and Viewpoint, it would be clearer if it said something like:

    The method of the Viewpoint the View conforms to describes how the exposed ...

    Otherwise it reads like a View has a method.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 12:20 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 12:20 GMT

Typo: 'Binding connectors, as defined in Clause 8 are used ...' missing comma

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

    p.123 Has:

    Binding connectors, as defined in Clause 8 are used ...

    Should probably be (note comma after 'Clause 8,'):

    Binding connectors, as defined in Clause 8, are used ...

    This is the pattern used in UML-2.5.1.

    Hope this one is not too trivial to raise as a ticket. Worth establishing a convention/policy

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 00:54 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 01:02 GMT

Typo: 'Deleting the container requirement deleted the nested requirements, a functionality inherited from UML.' should be 'deletes'

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

    'Deleting the container requirement deleted the nested requirements, a functionality inherited from UML.'

    Should probably be:

    'Deleting the container requirement deletes the nested requirements, a functionality inherited from UML.'

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 17 Jun 2020 21:58 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 01:02 GMT

Typo: 9.3.2.8 FlowProperty 'A flow propertys values'

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

    A flow propertys values

    Should be:

    A flow property's values

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 22 Jun 2020 07:07 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 07:07 GMT

For Connectors in IBD Figure D.4 to be typed by implied anonymous Associations need define them in BDD Figure D.15 between 'HybridSUV' and: 'Driver', 'Maintainer', 'Passenger', 'Baggage', 'Environment'

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

    The SysML-1.6 spec states:

    'The associations among the classes may represent abstract conceptual relationships among the entities, which would be refined in subsequent diagrams.'

    'Note how the relationships in this diagram are also reflected in the Automotive Domain Model Block Definition Diagram, Figure D.15.'

    Actually, they aren't, the BDD Figure D.15 only shows non-navigable composition Associations between the Automotive Domain block and the owned Properties, which appear in the IBD Figure D.4 as Property symbols.

    The Connectors in the spec figure have labels like 'x1:', 'x2:', etc. This seems to imply the existence of anonymous Assocations (between 'HybridSUV' and 'Driver', 'Maintainer', 'Passenger', 'Baggage', 'Environment'), but they are not defined in Figure D.15.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 21 Jun 2020 01:41 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 03:26 GMT
  • Attachments:

In Figure D.2 Real appears to be owned by the Automotive Value Types ModelLibrary (with no explicit ElementImport)

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

    In 'Figure D.2: Defining value Types and units to be used in the Sample Problem' the Real appears to be owned by the Automotive Value Types ModelLibrary.

    This might be intended (it might intend to imply there is an ElementImport); if this is the case maybe it should be made explicit somewhere (in a diagram or in text).

    Otherwise, it should be drawn outside the ModelLibrary.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 17 Jun 2020 00:17 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 00:17 GMT

Convention for enumeration not used for ControlValue

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19134
  • Status: open  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The convention

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

    is not used for the ControlValue enumeration. It should be named ControlValueKind.

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Thu, 5 Dec 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 05:11 GMT

Lots of ControlValues that should be ControlValueKinds

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    Lots of ControlValues that should be ControlValueKinds

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 05:06 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 05:11 GMT

standard way to describe a flow of data in sequence diagrams

  • Key: SYSML17-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11117
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:52 GMT

Contradiction regarding allowed use of the derived indicator for constraint parameters

  • Key: SYSML17-77
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17546
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Thu, 28 May 2020 16:09 GMT

Requirements interchange issue

  • Key: SYSML17-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13177
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Thu, 28 May 2020 16:06 GMT

TestCase should use PackageMerge

  • Key: SYSML17-63
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16286
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 11 May 2020 16:20 GMT

Where have stereotypes been defined?


Flow properties and activity paramters

  • Key: SYSML17-42
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15176
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 16:31 GMT

It should not be allowed to modify an AdjunctProperty

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

    As described in the specification, AdjunctProperties are clearly intended for representing as properties things that should have been defined as such but that are not for historical reasons.

    However, even if it can actually be convenient to use read actions adjunct properties, it is not clear what is the semantics of using write actions on them. In addition, per its description, it is clear that and an adjunct property is derived from its principal.

    Base on the above, constraints shall be added in order to: (1) require an adjunct property to be derived, and (2) prevent using a adjunct property as the target of write action

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:42 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:32 GMT


Missing comment for some attributes

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

    There are some elements that don't have any comment in the SysML.xmi file.
    (The list can be found at the end of the description)

    Our tooling is using these comments to automatically generate documentation

    Small question: Is the xmi file available for contribution? Maybe on a GitHub repository?

    Here is the list
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Activities.stereotype_packagedElement_Probability_ownedAttribute.probability
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Activities.stereotype_packagedElement_Rate_ownedAttribute.rate
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Blocks.stereotype_packagedElement_DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath_ownedAttribute.sourceContext
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Blocks.stereotype_packagedElement_DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath_ownedAttribute.sourcePropertyPath
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Blocks.stereotype_packagedElement_DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath_ownedAttribute.targetContext
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Blocks.stereotype_packagedElement_DirectedRelationshipPropertyPath_ownedAttribute.targetPropertyPath
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Libraries.package_packagedElement_UnitAndQuantityKind.class_packagedElement_QuantityKind_ownedAttribute.definitionURI
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Libraries.package_packagedElement_UnitAndQuantityKind.class_packagedElement_QuantityKind_ownedAttribute.description
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Libraries.package_packagedElement_UnitAndQuantityKind.class_packagedElement_QuantityKind_ownedAttribute.symbol
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Libraries.package_packagedElement_UnitAndQuantityKind.class_packagedElement_Unit_ownedAttribute.definitionURI
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Libraries.package_packagedElement_UnitAndQuantityKind.class_packagedElement_Unit_ownedAttribute.description
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Libraries.package_packagedElement_UnitAndQuantityKind.class_packagedElement_Unit_ownedAttribute.quantityKind
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Libraries.package_packagedElement_UnitAndQuantityKind.class_packagedElement_Unit_ownedAttribute.symbol
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_ElementGroup_ownedAttribute.criterion
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_ElementGroup_ownedAttribute.member
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_ElementGroup_ownedAttribute.name
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_ElementGroup_ownedAttribute.orderedMemeber
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_ElementGroup_ownedAttribute.size
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_Stakeholder_ownedAttribute.concern
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_Stakeholder_ownedAttribute.concernList
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_View_ownedAttribute.stakeholder
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_Viewpoint_ownedAttribute.concern
    SysML.package_packagedElement_ModelElements.stereotype_packagedElement_Viewpoint_ownedAttribute.presentation
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Ports_u0026Flows.stereotype_packagedElement_ChangeStructuralFeatureEvent_ownedAttribute.structuralFeature
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Ports_u0026Flows.stereotype_packagedElement_DirectedFeature_ownedAttribute.featureDirection
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Ports_u0026Flows.stereotype_packagedElement_InvocationOnNestedPortAction_ownedAttribute.onNestedPort
    SysML.package_packagedElement_Ports_u0026Flows.stereotype_packagedElement_TriggerOnNestedPort_ownedAttribute.onNestedPort

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 9 May 2016 15:51 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:08 GMT

Table 8.3: Row ActorPart shows Actor

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.6b1 — Sat, 18 May 2019 17:37 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:08 GMT

Allocate: Error in operation bodies

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

    The body condition of the Allocate::getAllocatedFrom()
    getAllocatedFrom = Allocate.allInstances()->select(to = ref).from
    should be
    getAllocatedFrom = Allocate.allInstances()->select(supplier = ref).client

    to and from are no stereotype or metaclass properties. The appropriate properties are client and supplier defined in the metaclass "Dependency".

    Accordingly change the Allocate::getAllocatedTo() body condition as well as the name "getAllocatedFrom" to "getAllocatedTo":

    getAllocatedTo = Allocate.allInstances()->select(supplier = ref).client.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:19 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:08 GMT

UML::ExceptionHandler should be part of SysML

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

    According to chapter 4.1 of the SysML 1.6 specification document, RaiseExceptionAction is part of SysML, but the ExceptionHandler is not part of UML4SysML.

    It makes sense to have a complete exception mechanism in SysML, for example, to model exceptional conditions like the violation of a constraint.

    Throwing an exception is not restricted to software, but a useful logical concept of modeling flow behaviors. For instance, it is also included in BPMN.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 21 Nov 2019 11:30 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:08 GMT

About Rate, Continuous and Discrete

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18735
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    In the figure shown below, Continous and Discrete stereotypes seems to be applied an ActivityParameterNode of an Activity. However, those aforementioned stereotype do not extend ActivityParameterNode but only Parameter and ActivityEdge. Is it an error?

    In the same order, <<continuous>>, <<discrete>> and <<rate>> are also applied on something called “Object Node”? However, <<Rate>> seems not to extend any node.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 23 May 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:08 GMT

SysML: References to CreateEvent incorrect

  • Key: SYSML17-76
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17467
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:08 GMT

Association owning ends

  • Key: SYSML17-62
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16263
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:08 GMT

IBD notation doesn't distinguish item properties from connector labels

  • Key: SYSML17-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15983
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:08 GMT
  • Attachments:

Do parametric bindings observe derived and read-only properties

  • Key: SYSML17-39
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15003
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:08 GMT

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

  • Key: SYSML17-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12144
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:08 GMT

10.3.1.2 Parametric Diagram: square box notation

  • Key: SYSML17-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12131
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:08 GMT

SysML: Generalizing Activites

  • Key: SYSML17-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10058
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:08 GMT
  • Attachments:

Missing type constraints for FullPort

  • Key: SYSML17-81
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18182
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 08:10 GMT

Duplicated sentence

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Mentor, a Siemens Business ( Fabien Launay)
  • Summary:

    The following sentence appears both before the bullet items list and as the first item in the bullet items list.

    "In the context of the definition of a SysML Stereotype, the name refers to the definition of a UML::PrimitiveType in the UML 2 PrimitiveTypes library"

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 25 Mar 2020 04:51 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 18:51 GMT

Unexpected word 'Figure' in Figure 4-2 name

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Mentor, a Siemens Business ( Fabien Launay)
  • Summary:

    Figure 4-2 name is "SysML Extension of UMLFigure".
    The word "Figure" at the end of the legend is not expected.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 25 Mar 2020 04:47 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 18:51 GMT

Unexpected section number

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Mentor, a Siemens Business ( Fabien Launay)
  • Summary:

    Section number 17.2.1.1 is used whereas section 17.2.1 does not exist

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 25 Mar 2020 02:36 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 18:50 GMT

Clarify that contraint parameters are value properties

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

    The description given for ConstraintBlock makes it implicit that constraint parameter are value properties but there is no formal constraint about it.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:38 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:38 GMT

proxy and full port notation change request

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

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

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 9 Oct 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 22:57 GMT
  • Attachments:

7_cannot_redefine_boundreference is too constrained

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    Standard says.... "BoundReferences shall not be applied to properties that are related by redefinition to other properties with BoundReference applied"

    This constraint seems very arbitrary... BoundReference could be used akin to an alias... which allows one to use it as another layer of indirection... BoundReferences should be allowed to refer to other BoundReferences so if the "other BoundReference" changes one does not have to change the first one which refers to it

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sun, 1 Mar 2020 16:36 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 15:58 GMT

Aggregation multiplicities not correct

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    Statement... "That is: "0..1" if the attribute has a composite aggregation and "0..*" otherwise"

    The standard specifies that...
    "8.3.1.1.10 Default multiplicities
    SysML defines defaults for multiplicities on the ends of specific types of associations. A part or shared association has a default multiplicity of [0..1] on the black or white diamond end. A unidirectional association has a default multiplicity of 1 on its target end. These multiplicities may be assumed if not shown on a diagram. To avoid confusion, any multiplicity other than the default should always be shown on a diagram."

    so the assumption would be 0..1 not 0..* on the otherwise part... UML has the same thing

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:21 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 15:57 GMT

SysML 1.6 statement is too strong

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    SysML says...
    “Unless a type of diagram element is shown in some form in one of the SysML diagram elements tables, or in a usage example in one of the normative SysML clauses, it is not considered to be part of the subset of UML included within SysML, even if the UML metamodel packages support additional constructs. For example, SysML imports the entire Dependencies package from UML, but it includes diagram elements for only a subset of the dependency types defined in this package.”

    so does that mean all of the actions in common behavior are not there (even though they are explicit included in the tables in the first chapter?)

    I think the statement above in SysML does not include everything... if this is what is wanted then UML4SysML needs to be changed to be only the things in the diagrams in the standard...

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 25 Feb 2020 03:18 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:52 GMT

Caveat is not specific for UseCases

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    The current standard says:

    "The only form of an association end that SysML allows an association to own directly is an unnamed end used to carry an inverse multiplicity of a reference property."

    But this is not totally true... the Communication Path in Use Cases is modeled as an Association and it has no navigability shown, which means it is navigable on both ends, which means ownership on both ends, but the ends are UseCases and Actors which are BehavioredClassifiers which do not have attributes, so this statement in the standard must be added to, to

    (this should go in a sentence in the standard after the sentence cited)
    allow Association to own both end of the association ends if one end is either an Actor or a UseCase.

    I state either because SysML deriving most of its UseCase semantics from UML... an Actor can be associated to a Classifier in a UseCase per UML... and a UseCase can be associated to another UseCase in UML provided that UseCase is not specifying the same Subject... this is specified in UML 2.5.1 in section 18.1.4

    "UseCases may have other Associations and Dependencies to other Classifiers"

    also 18.2.1.4 says "An Actor can only have Associations to UseCases, Components, and Classes. Furthermore these Associations
    must be binary."

    and 18.2.5.6 "UseCases cannot have Associations to UseCases specifying the same subject"

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:40 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:51 GMT

Introduction to 9.1.3 Proxy Ports and Full Ports might be interpreted as SysML only permitting Full and Proxy Ports (not standard ports)

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

    The following sentence under 9.1.3 Proxy Ports and Full Ports can cause confusion:

    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).

    It may be read as SysML only permitting Proxy Port and Full Port.

    I suggest it could be improved by adding the one word 'additional':

    SysML identifies two additional 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).

    Or more verbosely, something like:

    Apart from standard UML port usage, SysML identifies two additional 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).

    My experience is that some new SysML users (in part because of the way some tool menus work) get the impression that one somehow should not being standard ports at all in SysML, which is completely wrong.

    Some tools seem to assume (incorrectly) that just because SysML introduces Proxy and Full Port that one is always supposed to use one of them instead of a standard port, and they hide standard ports from some menus.

    I absolutely advocate the use (where appropriate) of standard ports still, especially early on during modelling. External clients of a port are not supposed to care ("know") anyway, it's ultimately an implementation detail.

    The SysML spec itself (as of SysML 1.6) is currently very clear on this:

    • 'Ports that are not specified as proxy or full are simply called "ports."'
    • '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.'
    • 'Modelers have the option of applying stereotypes for proxy and full ports to indicate whether ports are specifying features of their owners and internal parts (proxy), or for themselves separately (full).'
    • 'Using existing blocks with ports only requires knowing the port types ...'
    • 'Modelers can apply stereotypes for proxy and full ports at any stage of model development, or not all if the stereotype constraints are not needed.'
    • 'Figure 9-7 happens to use unstereotyped ports on a general block distributed to users, and stereotyped ports on its specializations for implementation, but the modelers might have not used stereotypes at all ...'
    • 'Unstereotyped ports do not commit to whether they are proxy or full, and do not prevent or dictate future application of the stereotypes'

    etc.

    (There are also considerations when using Ports from readonly libraries.)

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Sat, 15 Feb 2020 01:10 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 03:17 GMT

Continuous and Discrete need to be on FlowProperties as well

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    Continuous and Discrete need to be on FlowProperties as well as Parameters and ActivityEdge

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:03 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:08 GMT

No Creation and Destruction Event in Current UML

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    UML4SysML::CreationEvent
    UML4SysML::DestructionEvent

    There is no Creation or Destruction Event in the current UML

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:10 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 17:26 GMT

Figure 9.5 missing, duplicates 9.4

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Georgia Institute of Technology ( Marlin Ballard)
  • Summary:

    In this version of the spec, "Figure 9-5: Item Flow Stereotype" is a duplicate of "Figure 9-4: Provided and Required Features" and does not show the ItemFlow stereotype. The correct figure is present in 1.5 (pp85) and the 1.6beta (pp92) versions of the spec.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 17 Feb 2020 21:34 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:55 GMT

BDD representation of activity hierarchy

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.5b1 — Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:45 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 16 Feb 2020 15:25 GMT
  • Attachments:

Reference Properties do not reference properties

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

    A reference property of a Block may only be typed by (i.e. "reference") another Block. There is no current mechanism for a reference property to explicitly reference a part property of a different block. See Figure D.16 for example; the PowerSubsystem Block is assumed to be referencing the part property of the BrakeSubsystem typed by BrakePedal. This is a logical conclusion since there is only one part property typed by BrakePedal, but if there were multiple part properties typed by BrakePedal, the reference property of the PowerSubsystem Block would be ambiguous.

    Practical use of reference properties has consistently implied that a particular part property CAN be referenced (i.e. "a part property owned by another block"), but no mechanism for this is explicitly provided in SysML. Also, there does not appear to be any constraint on instance semantics of reference properties that might clarify this ambiguity at the instance level.

    See also SYSML16-42 and SYSML16-228.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Tue, 17 Oct 2017 00:17 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 01:48 GMT

Remove reference to non-existing properties allocatedFrom and allocatedTo

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

    Section 15.3.1.5 states:
    "For brevity, the «elementType» portion of the allocatedFrom or allocatedTo property may be elided from the diagram."

    The properties "allocatedFrom" and "allocatedTo" do not exist. Change the sentence to:

    "For brevity, the «elementType» portion of the allocatedFrom or allocatedTo section may be elided from the diagram."

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:21 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 16:21 GMT

Remove notation form ActorPart

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

    Table 8.3 has a row giving notation for an "Part Property typed by an actor". However since actors cannot have the Block stereotype applied, properties they type cannot be part properties as defined in the SysML specification Clause 8.3.2.4 Block, (p53)). So, this row shall be removed

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:59 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:59 GMT

Conjugation Stereotype

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    in the Algorithm given in section C.7, they refer to a stereotype named Conjugation (<<conjugates>>) which is also referred to in the resolution information... but that Stereotype does not appear in the standard

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:25 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 20:03 GMT

is the stereotype <<~InterfaceBlock>>

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    is the stereotype on a conjugate block <<~InterfaceBlock>> or <<InterfaceBlock>> not specified in the Standard and very confusing from what information is given in the standard

    I find the whole thing wrong... one should have a stereotype <<InterfaceBlock>> that has the attribute original in it... and remove <<~InterfaceBlock>> ... it works just the same without the confusion... one would need to make original [0..1]... or better yet, one could say that every InterfaceBlock must have an implicitly (possibly created by tool) or explicitly created by the modeler conjugate InterfaceBlock which is in the Model

    one could instead add in the stereotype <<conjugates>> which keeps that information as well... but then there needs to be a constraint in the standard that keeps conjugates and original in sync.. but this would be acceptable to be able to show this in a model

    by the way, there are places in the standard (examples) where it is not original as the attribute

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:39 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:51 GMT

Need Bound References Compartment

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    in Block1 and Block2, compartments need to be Bound References

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 29 Jan 2020 20:37 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 16:45 GMT

Parameters and Variables don't make sense

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:
    • diagram was lifted it looks like from UML... the header is UML not SysML needs to be fixed
    • the semantics are unknown, what message can be sent between an in and an inout primitve... would suggest that these are standardized, like set,get messages
    • this shows Parameters and Arguments, but does not show Variables which should be added
  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:17 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 10:51 GMT

VerdictKind enumeration missing

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:20 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:16 GMT
  • Attachments:

Verdict described incorrecty

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:24 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:16 GMT

AllocateActivityPartition: Reference to UML specification is wrong

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

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

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

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

    I propose to remove the subclause reference number.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6b1 — Wed, 26 Jun 2019 12:50 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:16 GMT

SysML::Trace relationship is not specialized from UML::Trace in the XMI

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

    The SysML::Trace stereotype is a specialization of the UML::Trace stereotype defined in the StandardProfile.

    In the SysML XMI the SysML::Trace stereotype has no generalization relationship to the UML::Trace stereotype. It is just a stereotype extending UML::Abstraction.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:53 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:16 GMT

SysML::Refine relationship is not specialized from UML::Refine in the XMI

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

    The SysML::Refine stereotype is a specialization of the UML::Refine stereotype defined in the StandardProfile.

    In the SysML XMI the SysML::Refine stereotype has no generalization relationship to the UML::Refine stereotype. It is just a stereotype extending UML::Abstraction.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:55 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:16 GMT

Description of AdjunctProperty

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

    The first sentence of the description of the Adjunct property stereotype does not make sense:
    "The AdjunctProperty stereotype can be applied to properties to constrain their values to the values of connectors typed by association blocks, call actions, object nodes, variables, parameters, interaction uses, and submachine states"

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Mon, 7 May 2018 12:13 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:16 GMT

The definition of AdjunctProperty

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

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

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

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

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

    Discuss.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 21 Aug 2019 16:30 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:16 GMT

DirectedFeature is confusing

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

    The intended use for the <<DirectedFeature>> stereotype is not at all clear from its specification in section 9.3.2.4 in SysML 1.5. To be clear, the current description describes what it is, but not why it is required, or how a modeller might use it. Moreover, it is not clear whether it specifically applies to ports (since its part of the section that specifies the language facilities for ports and flows (section 9), or whether it relates to features (properties?) of a block that are not ports.

    The issue was discussed at the RTF meeting of 2017-10-12 as a result of discussing issue http://issues.omg.org/browse/SYSML16-108. There was little consensus on what DirectedFeature is, although Conrad suggested the following (being my interpretation of what was said):
    A DirectedFeature of a block describes whether the block implements that feature (it's "provided") or that the feature is represents a conceptually virtualised feature as an "assumption" that something else in the model will provide it. The fulfilment of the required assumption with an actually provided realisation of that feature is by a connector between the required and the provided features.

    The problem with this interpretation is that it seems to have nothing to do with ports! There is of course further scope for confusion with the UML notation of provided and required interfaces on UML ports.
    At the very least, some examples that clearly illustrate what problem DirectedFeature solves and the types of model elements that it is to be applied to would help a lot.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:39 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:16 GMT

Replace UML4SysML::Kernel by UML4SysML::Generalization

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

    In SysML 1.5 pdf document ( p 147 Table 14.2- Graphical paths included in Use Case diagrams)

    Latest element in the table :

    • Path name: Generalization
    • Concrete Syntax : ->
    • Abstract Syntax Reference : UML4SysML::Kernel
      => it should be UML4SysML::Generalization

    Also present in SysML 1.4 pdf version

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:13 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:16 GMT

Typos/editorials found in the SysML 1.5 specification document


Error in pending 1.3 diagram 15.6 and elsewhere

  • Key: SYSML17-70
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16947
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    In Figure 15.6 in pending SysML 1.3, on the left side of the diagram, the object-flow, labeled objectflow3 is a dashed line. From table 11.2, object flows always use solid lines (though control flow can use either solid or dashed).

    This was also wrong in SysML 1.2, though the diagram number was then 15.5.

    Thanks to Geoffrey Shuebrook who pointed this out to me,.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 9 Jan 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:16 GMT

SysML's PrimitiveValueTypes library is missing "value" properties everywhere

  • Key: SYSML17-68
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16876
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Nicolas Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    For SysML 1.3, has anyone tried to specify the value of a SysML::ValueType ?

    If you haven't done so, please try to do this carefully – i.e., don't just assume that Real x = "42.0" is enough!

    You'll realize then that the SysML 1.3 spec doesn't provide the capability to specify the actual value for any of the SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes

    SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Boolean
    SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Integer
    SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Real
    SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::String

    Since we can't specify the actual real value of a SysML Real, we can't specify the realPart or the imaginaryPart of a SysML Complex number either!

    SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Complex::realPart :
    SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Complex::imaginaryPart

    What is missing is an actual "value" attribute whose type then must be from the UML PrimitiveTypes library since it's the only capability in UML/SysML we have to specify an actual "value" via the Literal[X] metaclasses in UML.

    SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Boolean::value : PrimitiveTypes::Boolean – an actual value can be specified as a UML::LiteralBoolean
    SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Integer::value : PrimitiveTypes::Integer – an actual value can be specified as a UML::LiteralInteger
    SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Real::value : PrimitiveTypes::Real – an actual value can be specified as a UML::LiteralReal
    SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::String::value : PrimitiveTypes::String – an actual value can be specified as a UML::LiteralString

    SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Complex can remain as-is since it inherits the capability
    to specify an actual value for its realPart & imaginaryPart attributes thanks to SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes::Real::value : PrimitiveTypes::Real

    I also realized that the QUDV library inconsistently uses in a few places SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes when in fact it should use UML's PrimitiveTypes.

    I believe that this is a new issue for SysML 1.3.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 5 Dec 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:16 GMT

The AdjunctProperty is not clearly described

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

    The benefit of the recently introduced Adjunct Property is not clearly stated in the standard. The current description is somewhat baffling and a recent discussion amongst learned members of the SysML RTF revealed further uncertainty.
    The standard's development needs to be sensitive to the general criticism that SysML is too complex. Thus language features that are described from their purely functional/implementation point of view neither inform the user community what they are for or, as seems to be the case here, make it clear that this part of the language that is a solution to a problem inherited from UML that modelling tools need to implement and end users need not be too concerned with.
    I would also question whether it was correct to change section 11.3.1.1 "Activity" by replacing the BDD representation of activity hierarchy (as per v1.3) with adjunct action properties (introduced in v1.4). Whilst the latter is possible with the AdjunctProperty facility, the prior method, inherited from UML, is still valid. That is, unless the UML activity hierarchy is expressly deprecated from SysML. Even then, it will leave end users with the question of what the additional benefit is of the adjunct property as applied to call behaviour actions.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 28 Apr 2017 12:53 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:16 GMT

QUDV library inconsistently uses SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes

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

    I also realized that the QUDV library inconsistently uses in a few places SysML::Libraries::PrimitiveValueTypes when in fact it should use UML's PrimitiveTypes.

    I believe that this is a new issue for SysML 1.3.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6b1 — Thu, 13 Jun 2019 14:34 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:16 GMT

SysML Issue on Refine limitations

  • Key: SYSML17-57
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16016
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:16 GMT

SysML: Align SysML Activities with Foundational UML

  • Key: SYSML17-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13152
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Change Vision ( Michael Chonoles)
  • Summary:

    SysML: Align SysML Activities with Foundational UML

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:16 GMT

Lack of notation for units and dimensions on values.

  • Key: SYSML17-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11493
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Lack of notation for units and dimensions on values. There are no samples at all

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:16 GMT

AbstractRequirement: direction of /tracedTo wrong in Attributes description

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

    This is the wrong way round:

    /tracedTo : NamedElement [0..*]
    Derived from all elements that are the client of a «trace» relationship for which this requirement is a supplier.(derived)

    However the operation statement is correct:

    getTracedTo () : NamedElement [0..*]
    bodyCondition:Trace.allInstances()->select(base_Abstraction.client=self).base_Abstraction.supplier
    

    See also attached image in a tool.

    Compare with consistent verifiedBy, satisfiedBy:

    /satisfiedBy : NamedElement [0..*]
    Derived from all elements that are the client of a «satisfy» relationship for which this requirement is a supplier.(derived)

    getSatisfiedBy () : NamedElement [0..*]
    bodyCondition:Satisfy.allInstances()->select(base_Abstraction.supplier=self).base_Abstraction.client
    

    /verifiedBy : NamedElement [0..*]
    Derived from all elements that are the client of a «verify» relationship for which this requirement is a supplier.(derived)

    getVerifiedBy () : NamedElement [0..*]
    bodyCondition:Verify.allInstances()->select(base_Abstraction.supplier=self).base_Abstraction.client
    

    It seems it was correct in SysML1.4:

    /tracedTo: NamedElement [*]
    Derived from all elements that are the supplier of a «trace» relationship for which this requirement is a client.

    The error may have been introduced during other changes.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 23 Jan 2020 02:37 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 02:41 GMT
  • Attachments:

Description of getRefines() restricts returned elements to AbstractRequirement [0..*] but the OCL static query does not (effectively NamedElement [0..*])

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

    The attached image was initially for analysis of SYSML17-57

    In UML2.5.1 the client(s) and supplier(s) of an Abstraction (including Trace stereotype) are always NamedElements.

    There are no additional constraints placed on the type of the client or supplier of the SysML Refines.

    The description of the operation getRefines() restricts the return elements to AbstractRequirement[0..*]

    getRefines (in ref : NamedElement) : AbstractRequirement [0..*]

    The query getRefines() gives all the requirements that are suppliers ("to"end of the concrete syntax) of a «Refine» relationships whose client is the element in parameter. This is a static query.

    (Typos in the above are addressed in a separate issue report.)

    But the OCL static query does not, and effectively returns NamedElement [0..*]

    bodyCondition:
         Refine.allInstances()->select(base_Abstraction.client=ref).base_Abstraction.supplier
    

    As examined under SYSML17-15, all of the following are currently valid (see also attached image):

    • Any NamedElement refines a Requirement.
    • A Requirement refines another Requirement.
    • A Requirement refines any NamedElement.
    • Any NamedElement refines another NamedElement.

    Tools correctly implementing the static OCL query permit display (or callout) of getRefined() on any NamedElement.

    It has to be decided whether:

    Option1: The static OCL query should have the return type filtered to only AbstractRequirement (not preferred by this submitter)

    Option2: Loosen the restriction on the description of the return type of getRefined() to the NamedElement[0..*] (preferred by this submitter)

    While Option2 may seem to depart from the initial spirit of the SysML Refines extension within the context of Requirements, it is more consistent with the general UML use of Refines between any (in SysML a pair only) of NamedElements. If this is done, the description also need to be rewritten thus (including typo fixes and fix of plural vs singular):

    The query getRefines() gives all the named elements that are suppliers ("to" end of the concrete syntax) of «Refine» relationships whose clients are the named element in parameter.

    This submitter see no reason why the use of NamedElement[0..*] throughout can't be adopted. Modellers using SysML Refines for Requirement are not impacted, and modellers using Refines for more general purposes would still have access to the useful getRefines().

    The above also implies moving Refines out of the Requirements chapter entirely (into, for example, Model Elements), with a description of the more general use of Refines, but also then describing the typical usage of it for Requirements refinement in the Requirements chapter.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 23 Jan 2020 01:47 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 02:05 GMT
  • Attachments:

Description of getRefines() has typo and inconsistent singular vs plural

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

    In the statement of getRefines():

    getRefines (in ref : NamedElement) : AbstractRequirement [0..*]

    The query getRefines() gives all the requirements that are suppliers ("to"end of the concrete syntax) of a «Refine» relationships whose client is the element in parameter. This is a static query.

    There should be a space in:

    "to"end

    So:

    "to" end

    There are mistakes in the use of singular vs plural, the operation description should read:

    The query getRefines() gives all the requirements that are suppliers ("to" end of the concrete syntax) of «Refine» relationships whose clients are the element in parameter. This is a static query.

    If the suggestion SYSML17-276 is adopted the above could be rewritten to state:

    The query getRefines() gives all the named elements that are suppliers ("to" end of the concrete syntax) of «Refine» relationships whose clients are the named element in parameter.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Thu, 23 Jan 2020 02:03 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 02:05 GMT

Shared parts are still parts

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

    The standard treats non-composite aggregation (white diamond) as the poor cousin of composite aggregation (black diamond) by lumping it into a group of block properties called “references”. (6th paragraph in section 8.3.2.3 Block.) So whilst parts (composite aggregation) have their own compartment, non-composite aggregates have to share a compartment with all of the reference block properties. This also occurs on the IBD with all the types of references being drawn with a dashed rectangular frame. At the very least I would propose that non-composite parts are called reference-parts (as opposed to “owned” parts for the composite ones) and are given their own compartment.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:10 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 23:26 GMT

Parts is too restrictive

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    the standard says
    ""The Sequence diagram describes the flow of control between actors and systems (blocks) or between parts of a system... lifelines into their constituent parts."

    But lifelines can be parts, references, parameters, arguments, variables

    also think one needs to make the distinction between Actors that are parts of the block and Actors that are external to the block because they can be represented as lifelines as well

    also should specify that because an interaction in definition is not tied to a particular block (but the context is derived when executed by a block)... there is no way of telling whether something is a part or a reference at definition time... therefore every head of a lifeline is should as solid and no distinction (like a dotted line for a head) is made in interaction diagrams

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:28 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:49 GMT

Missing guard brackets in example activity diagram 11-12

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

    The guard Brake Pressure > 0 in figure 11-12 on page 148 has no enclosing square brackets.

  • Reported: SysML 1.6 — Tue, 21 Jan 2020 16:44 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 16:44 GMT

How to interpret non-Navigation

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
  • Summary:

    An “X” on a single end of an association to indicate that an end is not navigable has similarly been dropped

    Does this statement mean that SysML has no concept of non-Navigation (only unspecified)... or does it mean that if you
    have an association end A has no Navigation shown, end B has Navigation shown... then End A should be interpreted as
    being non-Navigatable...

    The standard would indicate this as it says "has been similarly dropped" which means it is not shown but it is there all the same...

  • Reported: SysML 1.6b1 — Sat, 9 Nov 2019 15:53 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 19:57 GMT

ConstraintBlock: abstract syntax consistency

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

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

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

Syntactical clarification for ConstraintBlock

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

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

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

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

No changebars in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Note that UML2.5.1 states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

specializations of requirement should specialize AbstractRequirement

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:51 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 20:34 GMT

Should <> have a capital V?

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

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

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

Duplicate Elements in Table

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

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

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

Refine / Trace relationship operations are too restrictive

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

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

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

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

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

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

VerdictKind should also have the literal none

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

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

    none The test case has not been executed yet.

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

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

Another issue with allocate

  • Key: SYSML17-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15884
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 10:34 GMT

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


Can Enumerations be used on parametric diagrams for typing constraint parameters

  • Key: SYSML17-64
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16304
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 08:42 GMT
  • Attachments:

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

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

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

    Example: 11.3.1.2 CallBehaviorAction and Figure 11.2:

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

    shown in Figure 11.2.

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

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

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

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

    has the «controlOperator» stereotype applied).

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 08:00 GMT

Add Graphical notation for General Classifier

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Lockheed Martin ( Charles Galey)
  • Summary:

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

    Example Format might be (in ASCII art):

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Fri, 20 Oct 2017 05:22 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 11:50 GMT

Depletive/non-depletive semantics of ReadStructuralFeatureActions on FlowProperties

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

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

    SysML does not say anything about this for flow properties.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 19 Aug 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 15:11 GMT

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

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

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

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 20 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 15:11 GMT

Binding to multiplicity in parametrics

  • Key: SYSML17-38
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14998
  • Status: open  
  • 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
  • Updated: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:00 GMT

Precise Semantics for SysML

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

    Clarify the executable semantics of SysML Stereotypes

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

Comments in the XMI have no annotated elements

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

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

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

ProxyPort property "matching"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cannot model and validate physical connections

  • Status: open  
  • Source: US Navy - Naval Information Warfare Center - Atlantic ( Stuart Pearce)
  • Summary:

    I’d like to model the physical connection from a device to another device. It appears SysML 1.4 does not allow this natively or easily. I’ve discussed this issue with Russell Peak, Georgia Tech and he agrees that it is a short coming of SysML.

    For example:
    I have a computer with a power cord that I would like to model to verify the correct connectors are on it. The wall receptacle is typically a 5-15R for North America, the matching power cord connection is a 5-15P. The computer typically has a C13R power receptacle and the power cord plug would be a C13P. I can add ports to my block in an ibd for the receptacle and plug ends, but I cannot validate that a good connection is 5-15R=5-15P for the wall end or C13R=C13P for the computer end.
    This will apply for all types of physical connections, copper data, fiber data, pipe, tube, etc.

    If there is a working group for this area I will be glad to work with them.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 22 Apr 2019 10:40 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 15:50 GMT

Bad reference in section 4.2

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

    At the end of section 4.2 is an unresolved reference:

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

    Replace it with

    UnitAndQuantityKind, see 8.3.3.2

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

Typo: Constraint name 8 of Adjunct Property

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

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

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

Stakeholder constraint is listed twice

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

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

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

    Remove the "not_association" constraint.

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

Connectors are not allowed in bdd

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

    Figure D.23 depicts two blocks with ports that are connected by a connector.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:33 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT
  • Attachments:

Virtual member representing the whole RTF

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

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

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

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

Typo in revised text of issue SYSML16-289

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

    Typos in revised text for Annex C

    • Change "C.1.1 and C.1.2" to "C.1.2 and C.1.3".
    • Change "C.5 through C.7" to "C.4 through C.7".
  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:42 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

Statements missing in the abstract syntax description

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

    The description of stereotypes in the abstract syntax is missing all the "base_xxx" attributes that refer to the instances of extended elements. However this is required in order to specify the corresponding multiplicity and redefinition, if any.

    In addition, it should also be specified whether the corresponding stereotype is "required" or not. At that time, the only way to know it is to parse the normative XMI file.

  • Reported: SysML 1.5 — Thu, 21 Sep 2017 07:18 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

Numeric Literals as constraint block property parameter values

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

    It would be very useful to have the ability to have literal values as parameter values to a constraint block property. (Helps with reuse of constraint blocks.) Even better, to be able to use named constants from a (shared) library package (i.e. a different namespace), which could combine a description of the value with quantity and unit attributes.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:26 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

Expand use of rake symbol for all decompositions

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19783
  • Status: open  
  • Source: University of Detroit Mercy ( Michael Vinarcik)
  • Summary:

    I’d like to advocate for rakes on Call Operation nodes (that have associated methods) in the next SysML rev. We’re using operations extensively because they inherit nicely and have inputs/output parameters. By moving to Call Operations from Call Behaviors, we lose the rake that’s a visible sign you can drill deeper…so by using Call Operations with methods instead of Call Behaviors, we lose that visual cue.
    I put a stereotype with icons on the nodes as a fix, but I’d love to see it as a native function.

    I suggest that rake symbols should be expanded to include call operations on activity diagrams with methods attached (or any other situation in which drill-down is available).

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Tue, 9 Jun 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

Specify a specific part from a collection of parts on an IBD

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

    There is no way of saying which part from a collection (i.e. a plural cardinality/multiplicity) is being shown and hence there is no clear and unambiguous way of showing multiple parts from a collection separately on an IBD. E.g. the spokes on a wheel is easily modelled in a BDD as a collection of spokes, but not easily set out in an IBD, whereas, individually named (by role) spokes can be set out in an IBD, but, for more than a few, this becomes awkward to show on a BDD.
    For at least ordered collections (i.e. plural multiplicities) of parts (aggregate roles) the traditional use of square bracket array notation could be used, e.g. mypart[10] would refer to the 10th instance of part collection called "mypart". For unordered collections a selector (i.e. query) would be required.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 17:47 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

Requirement ID should be immutable

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19764
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Requirement IDs, as currently specified by the standard and implemented by vendors, are not adequate to ensure robust traceability outside MBSE models. The standard describes ID as "The unique Id of the requirement”. I would suggest replacing this sentence with "The unique and immutable Id of the requirement." This immutable characteristic is key to ensure robust traceability throughout a project with external stakeholders and documents.

    The current practice of using a hierarchical number for the ID is bad practice that should be discouraged, because a hierarchical ID will necessary change when the hierarchy is refactored, which is almost guaranteed to happen. This breaks traceability. I recognize that there is also a need for a hierarchical ID, mainly to be used to sort requirement tables properly using this property. For that use case, I would suggest a new ID called HID with the following description: “A unique hierarchical identifier, used to organize requirements within a package”

    Since we now have two different IDs that serve two different purposes, we should give guidance for which one should be used as the prefix in front of the name, depending of the context. My suggestion is as follows:

    • In a traceability context, the ID should be the prefix shown in front of the name. For example, when showing the table column "Derived From", the ID should be the prefix shown, not the HID.
    • In a hierarchical context (for example, in the containment tree), the HID should be shown as the prefix in front of the name.
    • When in doubt, use the ID in preference over HID.
  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 29 May 2015 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

Hanging Clauses Throughout SysML 1.4

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

    ISO/IEC Directives Part 2 2016 clause 22 states than each and every clause and subclause of the spec should be numbered, and hanging clauses should be avoided. Any numbered clause containing text or figures than that has a subordinate numbered clause becomes a hanging clause, because it does not have a unique number assigned to it.

    List of known hanging clauses in SysML 1.4 (exclusive of un-numbered ‘subpart’ text on pages 1, 19, 103, 145, and 185):
    6.2 page 17
    7.1 page 21
    7.3.2 page 26 (figure only)
    8.3.1.1 page 42
    8.3.1.2 page 44
    8.3.2 page 47 (figures only)
    8.3.3.1 page 59 (figure only)
    8.3.3.2 page 60 (figure only)
    9.1 page 71
    9.3.2 page 79 (figures only)
    10.3.2 page 100 (figure only)
    11.1 page 105
    11.3.1 page 114
    11.3.2 page 117 (both text and figure)
    11.3.3.1 page 121 (both text and figure)
    12.3.1 page 133
    15.3.2 page 150 (figure only)
    15.4 page 152 (both text and figure)
    15.4.2 page 153 (both text and figure)
    16.3.2 page 164 (figure only)
    16.4 page 168
    17.2.1 page 176 (figure only)
    17.2.2 page 178 (figure only)
    B.2 page 194 (figure only)
    C.1 page 203
    E.5.2 page 254 (both figures and text)
    E.6.5 page 286 (both figure and text)
    Annex F (no paragraph number)
    G.4 page 318

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:39 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

AllocateActivityPartition should be more formaly related to allocation Relationship

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

    Assuming an AllocateActivityPartition is used to specify allocations, the element created in the model to represent it should be more formally linked to the corresponding Allocate relationships.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 15:33 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

A discarded resolution still appears in the ballot

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

    Resolution SYSML-331 was discarded from ballot#8, replaced by SYSMLR-359 then added to ballot#9.

    However in ballot#9, SYSMLR-331 still appears beside SYSMLR-359 with all the votes casted in the ballot#8!

    It's rather confusing because, in addition, JIRA said that we already voted for this ballot, which is not true!

    Can we fix this?

    Thanks

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 21 Oct 2016 05:56 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

Description of model elements in generated document not consistent with specification

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

    The document that is generated from the model file defining the SysML profile contains descriptions of the model elements that are not consistent with the specification.

    Some description texts are completely missing, some are incomplete, and some have a different text than in the specification document.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:10 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

Property path notation

  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    SysML spec says:

    The name of the referenced property is built by a string of names separated by “.”, resulting in a form of path name that identifies the property in its local context.

    The problem is that in real-life models properties/parts are unnamed. In this case, it is not clear how property path should look like, or looks like this:
    name1…..value or vehicle….value where intermediate properties are unidentifiable.

    A proposed solution would be to use type name if part name is not specified.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 20 Jun 2016 21:14 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

Missing property descriptions for Probability and Rate

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

    The stereotypes Probability and Rate in the Activities chapter have no description of their properties.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Mon, 2 Jan 2017 13:01 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

Inherit from a conjugated interface block

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19644
  • Status: open  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Figure 9.7 shows that the types of parts that are connected with binding connectors with proxy ports inherit from the proxy port types. That assures that all the features of the interface block type of the proxy port are implemented by the part.

    However in practice you typically have for most proxy ports also a connected conjugated proxy port. You can't inherit from a conjugated interface block and therefore must manually define a conjugated version of the interface block. In summary that supersedes the concept of conjugation.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 17 Oct 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

More than one View() operation allowed

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19623
  • Status: open  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The viewpoint constraint about the View() operation allows more than one View() operation:

    [2] The property ownedOperation must include at least one operation named “View” with the UML Create stereotype
    applied.

    It is not specified what happens if there is more than one View() operation. For example:

    • In which order are they performed? If only one View() operation is performed it is not defined which one.
    • The wording of the derived property method is only about one operation ("of the operation").

    As long no one has a good use case to have more than View() operation I propose to change constraint [2] to:

    [2] The property ownedOperation must include exactly one operation named “View” with the UML Create stereotype
    applied.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

ElementGroup cannot be source or target of a dependency

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19595
  • Status: open  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The stereotype ElementGroup extends the base class comment which is not a NamedElement. Therefore a ElementGroup can't be source or target of a dependency and it is not possible to use an ElementGroup for instance with a trace or satisfy relationship.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Sun, 7 Sep 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

Deprecate Unit and QuantityKind stereotypes in 1.4

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19062
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NASA ( Nicolas Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Instead of deleting the Unit and QuantityKind stereotypes according to the 18269 resolution in SysML 1.4 ballot 4, I suggest moving these stereotypes to the SysML::DeprecatedElements package.

    Without doing this, a SysML 1.4 tool that opens a SysML 1.3 model will have to convert InstanceSpecifications stereotyped by SysML 1.3 Unit or QuantityKind into InstanceSpecifications classified by SysML::Libraries::UnitAndQuantityKind::Unit or QuantityKind respectively.

    Even if a SysML 1.4 tool alerts the user that this migration has happened, it will not be possible to discern InstanceSpecifications classified by SysML::Libraries::UnitAndQuantityKind::Unit or QuantityKind due migration from SysML 1.3 vs. deliberate choice.

    A better migration strategy would be to convert SysML 1.3 Unit/QuantityKind-stereotyped InstanceSpecifications into SysML 1.4 InstanceSpecifications that are both:
    stereotyped by SysML::DeprecatedElements::Unit/QuantityKind
    Classified by SysML::Libraries::UnitAndQuantityKind::Unit or QuantityKind
    The former leaves a persistent indication that the InstanceSpecifications have been partially migrated.
    The latter represents a partial migration to SysML 1.4 Units/QuantityKinds; that is, the user can complete the migration by classifying these InstanceSpecifications with concrete SysML Blocks that specialize SysML::Libraries::UnitAndQuantityKind::Unit or QuantityKind respectively.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Fri, 1 Nov 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

ProxyPort with FlowProperties

  • Key: SYSML17-98
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18676
  • Status: open  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    I struggle to use proxy port with flow properties. One idea is to use a behavioral port and to bind the flow properties with the behavior parameters. In chapter 9.3.2.7 about FlowProperties the spec states:

    The binding of flow properties on ports to behavior parameters can be achieved in ways not dictated by SysML. One approach is to perform name and type matching. Another approach is to explicitly use binding relationships between the ports properties and behavior parameters or block properties.

    What are port properties? A port has no properties, but the type of the port, e.g. a InterfaceBlock. And these properties are the same for any usage of the InterfaceBlock and I can’t use context-specific binding relationships.

  • Reported: SysML 1.4 — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT

Inability to specify partial allocation and requriements satisfaction

  • Key: SYSML17-86
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18434
  • Status: open  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Sanford Friedenthal)
  • Summary:

    The allocate and requirements relationships (e.g., satisfy, verify, derive) do not explicitly state the degree to which these relationships apply. For example, a satisfy relationship may imply a model element may fully satisfy, partially satisfy, or not satisfy at all a particular requirement at a point in the design process. However, there is no standard way to refer to this partial vs complete satisfaction. A similar issue applies to the verify and derive relationships.

    Note: Similar issues apply to allocate relationships where the allocate may indicate that the element is fully or partially allocated to another element.

    The SysML spec should consider incorporating a tagged value to indicate 0, partial or complete on these relationships.

  • Reported: SysML 1.3 — Fri, 8 Feb 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:20 GMT