SysML is New Language or Not?
Zubair Ahmed
It is obvious that SysML is derived from UML.my question whether it is New Language or Not?
SysML is come around due to customization of UML 2.0 profile. when profile is customized to my mind It become new Language.On the other hand it is also mentioned in some literature that SysML is defined as UML 2.0 profile i.e which indicates that it is not new Language.
What you say? Please answer
Zubair
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
Arun Chakrapani Rao
SysML should be considered as a new language. Although it reuses
several UML 2.0 diagrams and their semantics, it has also introduced
new diagrams based on the ways in which a UML language can be
extended. It also reduces the size of the language in terms of the
number of diagrams, extends the capabilities of some diagrams and
above all makes it easy to interpret all these from a systems
engineering point of view.
So, as a language, I think it is considered as a "new" language (even
though it's not using UML diagrams in a way that its semantics is
drastically changed). From the perspective of a software tool
implementing SysML, I think one can look at it as a profile of UML 2.0
- in other words, it uses most of UML 2.0 elements and then removes
parts of it, extends with new diagrams etc. i.e., customises an
existing UML 2.0 tool for the domain of systems engineering.
Hope this helps. Maybe, others on the list can comment on finer
differences with an example or comment on my comments..
Cheers,
Arun
On Jun 5, 10:40 am, Zubair Ahmed <umlcertif...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> It is obvious that SysML is derived from UML.my question whether it is New Language or Not?
>
> SysML is come around due to customization of UML 2.0 profile. when profile is customized to my mind It become new Language.On the other hand it is also mentioned in some literature that SysML is defined as UML 2.0 profile i.e which indicates that it is not new Language.
>
> What you say? Please answer
>
> Zubair
>
> ---------------------------------
Raul, Rabindranath (IE10)
I agree with Arun.
Here is snapshot of the Language architecture of the SysML.
Last paragraph clearly mentions the introduction of new modeling constructs specific for sysml.
Hence I feel it should be treated as new language as there is not counter parts/replacement constructs in UML2.0.
Regards
Raul
Raul, Rabindranath (IE10)
Sorry,
The image portion of my email got filtered. Please refer to the below paragraph or section 4-Language Architecture.
SE RFP. This specification documents the language architecture in terms of the parts of UML 2.1 that are reused and the extensions to UML 2.1. This chapter explains design principles and how they are applied to define the SysML language architecture. In order to visualize the relationship between the UML and SysML languages, consider the Venn diagram shown in Figure 4.1, where the sets of language constructs that comprise the UML and SysML languages are shown as the circles marked “UML” and “SysML”, respectively. The intersection of the two circles, shown by the cross-hatched region marked “UML reused by SysML,” indicates the UML modeling constructs that SysML re-uses. The compliance matrix in Table 4.1 below specifies the UML packages that a SysML tool must reuse in order to implement SysML.
The region marked “SysML extensions to UML” in Figure 4.1 indicates the new modeling constructs defined for SysML which have no counterparts in UML, or replace UML constructs. Note that there is also a part of UML 2.1 that is not required to implement SysML, which is shown by the region marked “UML not required by SysML.”
Regards,
Raul
Zubair Ahmed
Thanks for attention, I am also considering this diagram in OMG SysML specification, you may consider following questions
1. SysML is defined as profile of UML 2.0 ,in this case you can not left out any thing.(Not a new Language).
2. SysML has its own profile which is based on intersection portion of this diagram. (for new language)
please make comments.
regards
Zubair
face="Courier New" size="2">
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
Jack Ring
Darren R C KELLY
Borrows some terms from "parent" language,
and adds some new terms and symbols,
domain of application is a bit different
(like Swiss German or Bavariam in the alps as
opposed to High German on the flatlands).
regards,
Darren
--
Dr Darren R C Kelly, BSc, PhD
No Magic Inc.,
Expert Advisor,
Science, Engineering, and Education
Phone: +61 (2) 9300 6228
Mobile: +61 (2) 405 029 008
Post: PO Box 1816, Bondi Junction, NSW 1355, Australia
Magicdraw UML: Architecture made simple !
Davis, Ron.L - SSD
consider that it was not named UML X.0 but SysML(anguage).
Ron L. Davis
ITT Industries
Space System Division
-----Original Message-----
From: SysML...@googlegroups.com [mailto:SysML...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Darren R C KELLY
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 9:02 PM
To: SysML...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [SysML Forum] Re: SysML is New Language or Not?
regards,
Darren
*****************************************************************
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be proprietary
and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in
error please notify the sender. Please note that any views or
opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of ITT Corporation. The
recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the
presence of viruses. ITT accepts no liability for any damage
caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
*******************************************************************
Michael J Chonoles
expert will be able to understand the notation and vocabulary at some level,
a programmer will likely not be able to get at the meaning of the diagrams.
Sort of like a cant or argot, that is, it's still the same langauge, using
the same grammer structure and sharing vocabulary, but you're not goingto
understand what a thief is talking about unless they really want you to.
Not that System engineers are thieves, but they are often a despised social
class <grin>.
Michael Jesse Chonoles
Co-author UML 2 For Dummies
OMG-Certified UML Advanced Professional.
Cris Kobryn
That really depends upon your perspective. Based on the number of
responses to this thread, the most active in this forum for quite a
while, the discussion clearly does matter to many forum readers.
I have watched this discussion with interest because I wanted to obtain
a better understanding of how SysML *users* are viewing SysML compared
to the UML2 from which it was derived. As an industry "insider" I know
firsthand the strong opinions of many of the SysML Partners about the
issues raised on this thread. (I chaired the open source SysML project
prior to OMG adoption, and the UML 1.1 and UML 2.0 standardization
efforts that preceded it.) Indeed, I moderated many animated
discussions about whether SysML was a new "language" or yet another
UML2 "dialect". However, I find it far more interesting and useful now
to hear how SysML users are thinking about these same issues.
From a language designer perspective, there is little question that
SysML is a *dialect* of UML2, rather than a completely new language.
You need only read the SysML specifications yourself to see this. SysML
is only vaguely defined as a UML2 profile, a large collection of
stereotypes whose semantics are loosely and (unfortunately)
inconsistently defined. SysML has no separate metamodel semantics of
its own to separate it from UML2, so it inherits most of the
shortcomings, as well as the advantages, of that bloated modeling
language standard. One of the big dirty secrets of the SysML open
source project is that the SysML Partners first tried, but failed, to
define SysML using a separate metamodel to avoid the pitfalls of UML2.
So please be clear that defining SysML as a dialect/profile was not our
first choice; we only ended up pursuing that path because we lacked the
resources and time to do otherwise.
From a Muddle Driven Marketecture (MDM) perspective, however, some
persons appear to be promoting the fanciful idea that SysML is a brand
new *language* that is a major improvement upon the UML2 on which it is
based. Persons who drink and sell the MDM kool-aid for SysML often show
a Venn diagram to help make their case here, where the diagram shows a
relatively small intersection with UML2, indicating both substantive
size reduction and innovative extension. As the original author of this
Venn diagram during the early days of the SysML project, when it had
some conceptual validity, I find that this diagram is now outdated,
inaccurate, and misleading. If anyone performs technical due diligence
here, they will find that the version of SysML that the OMG has adopted
is nearly as bloated as the UML2 on which it is based, and consequently
suffers from many of the same obesity problems (gratuitous complexity,
rampant inconsistencies, dysfunctional XMI-based interchange, etc.) as
its parent language. (Don't be misled by using a simplistic diagram
count for comparison here, check out the numbers of UML2 metaclasses
and stereotypes reused and new stereotypes added.)
So what does this matter to a pragmatic engineer who simply wants to use
SysML to solve practical systems engineering problems? More than you
might think at first. The extent to which SysML succeeds in
distinguishing itself from UML2, while at the same time interoperating
with it in mixed language environments (e.g., systems engineers
collaborating with software engineers), will likely have a major impact
on its success in the marketplace.
Best,
Cris
__________________________________________________
Cris Kobryn
Editor, SysML Forum
edi...@SysMLforum.com
Cris Kobryn
> expert will be able to understand the notation and vocabulary at some
> level, a programmer will likely not be able to get at the meaning
> of the diagrams.
To the extent that systems engineers can work independently of software
engineers for "different purposes," you are obviously correct. However,
that doesn't seem to reflect the reality of large-scale engineering
projects, where large numbers of systems engineers and software
engineers collaborate on the implemention of detailed requirements,
including performance requirements, that are being defined after,
instead of before, the software design is begun! This problem is likely
to become worse, not better, as systems continue their trend to become
more software-intensive.
So I don't think that the issues related to linguistic overlap between
SysML and UML2 should be so quickly dismissed, since they are already
beginning to cause problems on projects with mixed UML2/SysML language
usage.
> Sort of like a cant or argot, that is, it's still the same langauge,
> using the same grammer structure and sharing vocabulary, ...
At least we seem to agree that UML2 and SysML are "still the same
language," which I consider both good and bad. It's good because SysML
builds on an older, more mature standard that is widely accepted among
software engineers. It's bad, or at least unfortunate, because SysML
was a squandered opportunity to fix some of the excesses of UML2.
> but you're not goingto understand what a thief is talking about
> unless they really want you to.
> Not that System engineers are thieves, but they are often a despised social class <grin>.
This is an interesting choice of metaphor, and you remind me of some of
the personalities that I worked with during the SysML standardization
process. I'm glad that you made this remark, and not I!
/Cris
__________________________________________________
Cris Kobryn
Editor, SysML Forum
edi...@SysMLforum.com
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [SysML Forum] Re: SysML is New Language or Not?
> From: "Michael J Chonoles" <mjcho...@yahoo.com>
> Date: Fri, June 08, 2007 9:00 am
> To: <SysML...@googlegroups.com>
>
> In any case, SysML and UML are used for different purposes, while a UML
> expert will be able to understand the notation and vocabulary at some
> level,
> a programmer will likely not be able to get at the meaning of the
> diagrams.
>
> Sort of like a cant or argot, that is, it's still the same langauge,
> using
> the same grammer structure and sharing vocabulary, but you're not
goingto
> understand what a thief is talking about unless they really want you
to.
>
> Not that System engineers are thieves, but they are often a despised
> social
> class <grin>.
>
>
>
> Michael Jesse Chonoles
> Co-author UML 2 For Dummies
> OMG-Certified UML Advanced Professional.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: SysML...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:SysML...@googlegroups.com] On
> > Behalf Of Davis, Ron.L - SSD
> > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 7:23 AM
Davis, Ron.L - SSD
I get your point. After sending my previous comment, I realized that a
UML X.0 would be a revision of UML not a dialect. So the dialect
terminology makes sense to me now. I think you have made another good
analogy if I understand 'cant' and 'argot'. It's like trying to
understand your teenagers when they use the English language or your
alternative native language).
By the way, I cut my UML teeth on your book, UML 2 for Dummies. Thank
you for explaining UML so we dummies can understand it.
Jack Ring
practitioners should be focused on a) system effects and resultant outcomes
then b) system capabilities that can create said effects then c) the
preferred form of value carriers (also known as output artifacts) that
manifest said capabilties. All this with respect to the list of stimuli
that the system is supposed to honor and the rewards the system is supposed
to garner for honoring said stimuli.
There is no reason for system engineering practitioners to be hypothesizing
about functions the "system shall" perform. Functions and implications
thereof are best left to those designers who are closer to implementation
technologies such as electronics, chemistry, materials, software,
knowledgeware, human motivation technology and human systems dynamics
technologies, etc..
It is not likely that one person is concurrently expert at systems things
and at multiple realization technologies. There are exceptions, of course,
Bert Rutan, Colin Chapman of Lotus Racing, Steve Wosniak, etc. but they
don't need SystML nor UML.
Once these realization disciplines have had their initial round of
innovation then the systems practitioner can re-engage to discover and
finalize the best architecture for the system.
From there on the realization disciplines can do their Make/Buy thing while
the systems practitioner performs advise and consent on myriad change
proposals.
Accordingly, there need be no clash of notation or language or whatever.
There is a need for systems thinkers and doers, not people who want to
engineer systems.
Ironically, SysML will become the prosthetic of choice for real software
engineers and UML will be recognized as a courseware authoring tool.
Now that youall have a common enemy, you can begin to join together in an
attempt to prove me wrong.
onward,
Jack Ring
Simpson, Joseph J
Interesting approach.
I believe that the concept of a "function" needs to be better defined.
Sten Dahlberg has attempted this definition refinement by creating two
classes of functions.
These classes are:
- Mission function
- System function
Have fun,
Joseph Simpson
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"SysML Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to SysML...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
SysMLforum-...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/SysMLforum?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Peter Shames
Data Systems (RASDS) which is derived from it, we would say that
these are different object classes in two entirely different
viewpoints, Enterprise for mission and Functional for System. While
SysML does define the concept of View and Viewpoint (see also IEEE
1471 for a discussion) it has not yet defined any method for
specifying them nor any useful set of viewpoint specifications.
The ones defined in RM-ODP will be familiar to developers of software
intensive systems, but may not be completely useful for developers of
automotive systems or locomotives. However, for the systems that
they do address well these viewpoint specs are a great place to start.
Cheers, Peter
_______________________________________________________
Peter Shames
Manager - JPL Data Systems Standards Program
InterPlanetary Network Directorate
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, MS 301-230
California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Telephone: +1 818 354-5740, Fax: +1 818 393-0584
Internet: Peter....@jpl.nasa.gov
________________________________________________________
"We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring
will be to arrive at where we started, and know the place for the
first time"
T.S. Eliot
Stéphane PELLESCHI
I'm Stephane PELLESCHI and I'm working for the TOPCASED project, a
toolkit to develop embedded systems, on an open source SysML editor.
I'm about to go on with this discussion introducing you a SysML
meta-model proposal we've done to the Eclipse Foundation (as the one
existing for UML2). I think you will easily understand that I'm in favor
of a language definition rather than a profile.
Why a specific meta-model? Actually we think that independently of the
stereotype of a SysML element, elements in a SysML model are closely
related. For instance constraints in a parametric diagram are dependent
of others, properties have mandatory links with blocks which needs, as a
consequence, a specific link between IBDs and BDDs. Hence, we think that
a profile can't cover all the SysML mechanisms and we think that a
specific editor (not the use of a UML2 editor profile feature) is
mandatory to apply the whole SysML philosophy.
Of course there is no need to define, one more time, UML2/SysML common
elements and that's why this meta-model uses the UML2 meta-model as a
resource (seen as an import of the definition of the UML2 elements) and
can be used to define SysML editors.
All the details of the TOPCASED project are given in the proposal at the
following address :
http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.modeling.mdt/msg00057.html
That's our point of view but it can be discussed!
Regards,
--
-----------------------------------------------
Stephane PELLESCHI
Atos Origin - Agence Sud-Ouest
18 av de l'escadrille Normandie-Niemen BP 20
31701 Blagnac Cedex
Bureau : 05.34.55.82.21
05.62.74.59.93
Télécopie: 05.62.74.59.00
=======================================================================
Ce message electronique est confidentiel. Il peut contenir des
informations protegees par le secret professionnel, le secret de
fabrication ou autres regles legales. Si vous recevez ce message par
erreur, il vous est interdit de le reproduire ou de le distribuer en
tout ou en partie, ou de le divulguer de quelque maniere que ce soit a
quelque personne que ce soit. Nous vous prions de bien vouloir en
informer Atos Origin, par telephone ou par retour d'e-mail puis de
detruire le message et toutes copies de votre systeme informatique. Le
contenu de ce message ne reflete pas necessairement ni les opinions
d'Atos Origin ni celle des membres de son groupe. Bien que l'emetteur
de ce message ait fait tout son possible pour maintenir son systeme
informatique sans virus, il ne peut garantir que cette transmission ne
comporte aucun virus et il ne pourra etre tenu pour responsable de
quelque dommage que ce soit resultant de la transmission d'un virus.
=======================================================================
This electronic transmission is confidential. It may contain
information that is covered by legal professional privilege, work
product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received this
transmission in error, you must not copy or distribute this message or
any part of it or otherwise disclose its contents to anyone. Please
notify Atos Origin Legal Services by telephone or return E-mail, and
then delete this transmission and any copies of it from your computer
system. The views expressed in this electronic transmission do not
necessarily reflect those of Atos Origin SA or any member of its group.
Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus free
network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus
free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus
transmitted.
=======================================================================