Darold,
I read your assessment of pitfalls of OO in the SysML_OO SE Approach_V1 doc you sent to the group. I find it curious that you indicate "reject" on both specs. not sure what that means since in your recommendation (last sentence) you state:
"Take this issue into account as a caveat when using SysML OO methodology."
if this issue is taken as a caveat, I would think it means we accept both specs. I think this goes to the heart of most of our discussions on other issues also. INCOSE requested that OO design techniques be adapted for SE processes and launched the SysML RFI and RFP process through OMG. I believe both specs have done that well (both specs were essentially the same as of Nov 2005). SEs now have to learn UML and SysML and adopt the OO techniques which, as you stated, are fundamentally design tools.
Given this caveat, I think we should accept the specs.
I believe others on this review team echo my position (others who agree, please provide your feedback)
From: SysML-Ev...@googlegroups.com [mailto:SysML-Ev...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Smith, Darold
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 7:51 PM
To: SysML-Ev...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [SysML-Evaluators] D Smith CommentsSee the comments attached.Darold K. Smith: PE, CSEPCertified Systems Engineering ProfessionalUGS Corporation: Transforming the Process of InnovationTeamcenter for Systems EngineeringSystems Engineering Consulting ServicesOffice: 903.883.0781Fax: 903.883.2981
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:47 PM
To: SysML-Evaluators
Subject: [SysML-Evaluators] FW: [SysML-Evaluators] Re: D Smith Comments
----- Original Message -----From: Smith, DaroldTo: SysML-EvaluatorsSent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:47 PM