SysML-Evaluators

I am forwarding two important notes to SysML-Ev...@googlegroups.com for the group record. Here

I am forwarding two important notes to SysML-Ev...@googlegroups.com for the group record. Here

Darrold, I want to change the accept/reject items in issues 30.00 and 30.10. From the E-mail trail, i

See the attachment for revision and added comments relevant to Issue 2 and Issue 3. Regards, Darold K

SysML Evaluators: My list of issues and comments are attached. Regards: JF Skipper Senior Engineer

SysML Evaluators, The attached document summarizes the JPL evaluation team's position directed to

Michael, Glad to have you available on the evaluation as a third party observer with some solid UML

Mike, I am glad to see that you got something in. I have failed miserably but I hope the onslaught

All, Please find an updated version of the review of the requirements chapter of the respective

David, Attached are the issues from Georgia Tech. We used a priority index of 1 to 3: · Priority 1:

Dave, My own issues are included in the file I sent. but I also had "resolutions" to your

Bran As far as I remember there is a minor difference between regular association and white diamond

Folks, Updated SysML parametrics examples are available here: http://www.pslm.gatech.edu/topics/sysml

All, Attached is a PPT file with a couple of examples that are candidates for SysML representation.

Dear SysML Evaluators, I have not found one publication that calls out the distinction between model-

Folks, I have added the SST overview slides (2005-12-19) onto this website for reference and

I have updated my blog with an entry following issues on the last call. This includes a write-up on

Jeff, I will provide input on the issue. I do however on principal object to any private collection

I will be out of the office starting 12/20/2005 and will not return until 01/04/2006. I will respond

All, Attached is the INCOSE Model Driven System Design group's response to the Request for

I have a new blog entry of interest to this group. http://spaces.msn.com/members/michaellatta As I

I just had an idea for a way to get closer to what would be ideal while living with the UML and

Fatima, I have sent a cude draft of a manner to collect issues from reviewers. I expect us to discus

The following inserts are my own opinion about this: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas

SysML Evaluators, Attached is the third of four review documents (in Adobe PDF format) that reflects

Darold, Thank you for your comments. I agree that it would be far better to have the requirements

I am afraid we may need to respectfully disagree on this. Your examples keep coming back to

Please reply to this parametrics discussion under this new topic thread: From: Russell Peak Sent:

Sandy, All, Some clarifications to my previous comments on requirements chapters in both submission

There are new updates on my blog that would be of interest to this list. http://spaces.msn.com/