Dear Anatoly,
As I understand it you suggesting is that given the deficiencies of the UML
family languages regarding scaling to business eco-systems one should start
over. I have to disagree with you; the disagreement is pragmatic.
What I see is that UML and SysML while needing improvement have become
defacto standards in many engineering domains. This family of languages is
slowly getting a formal semantics, they have good tool support, and they are
being used on a wide scale. Further, OMG the keeper of these language
specifications recognizes that the standards need improvement and are
beginning to recognize that the languages need a formal semantics. There are
several RFPs from OMG related to this. One of them is called something like
a" precise semantics for composite structure"
The difficulty with scaling to eco-systems is not in my opinion a language
of UML or any other language; is a system engineering methodology defect.
One has to develop and enforce some common terminology (ontology?) and some
interoperability standards to expect to get consistent integrated
architecture. this commonality currently exists in the CAD world and many
multinational companies collaborate. Developing some commonality at least
where things interface can work for use of UML in an eco-system. The lack of
this kind of hygiene is also responsible for even small projects failing. (01)
Regards
- Henson (02)
-----Original Message-----
From: Anatoly Levenchuk [mailto:ailev@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:45 PM
To: 'Bock, Conrad'; 'henson graves'; chris.paredis@xxxxxxxxxx; 'David
Price'; 'Fredrick A Steiner'; 'Victor Agroskin';
Ron_C_Williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'David Leal'
Cc: Matthew West
Subject: RE: INCOSE Ontology Action Group, onto SysML/UML (03)
Conrad,
Thank you for pointing me to the right links for your works. (04)
I appreciate your ideas about adding ontology to product, behavior and
project descriptions languages, especially architecture languages. (05)
I know that UML 2 and MOF are a big leap to formal semantics in MDA world.
But for me this is not enough to enable UML family languages scaling to
business eco-systems (beyond one enterprise). What is an object in one
project appears as an attribute in another and vice versa (lessons learned
from work of EPISTLE consortium). There was extended discussion in ISO 15926
community that build on EPISTLE experience. (06)
I carefully see development of ArchiMate as a very successful fact-oriented
architectural language. There are no attributes in ArchiMate, and still they
have no formal semantics. Sure, they have almost no ontology features. I
think that eventually they will have 1) formal semantics, will add 2)
ontology features (the two things that you provided with UML and OPML) and
continue be 3) fact-oriented. I am wonder how many years 1) and 2) will take
(I guess no less that this was taken by UML). (07)
Personally I try to use ISO 15926 as an engineering ontology, but it is not
a language because has no good notations. My team is thinking about language
workbench (http://www.languageworkbenches.net) supporting multiple
engineering DSL on a base of ISO 15926 representation of system-of-interest,
systems in operational environment and enabling systems. Sure, most of this
DSL will be established languages for specialty engineering but we still
need a good architectural language. Your work on OPML give us inspiration to
continue think about fact-oriented variant of such a language with strong
ontology flavor and still usable by engineers. (08)
Best regards,
Anatoly (09)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bock, Conrad [mailto:conrad.bock@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 12:46 AM
> To: Anatoly Levenchuk; 'henson graves'; chris.paredis@xxxxxxxxxx;
> 'David Price'; 'Fredrick A Steiner'; 'Victor Agroskin';
> Ron_C_Williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'David Leal'
> Subject: RE: INCOSE Ontology Action Group, onto SysML/UML
>
> Anatoly,
>
> > Conrad Bock at al. had papers where they urge for "more ontology
> > in product modeling languages" and suggest alternatives like OPML
> > (Ontological Product Modeling Language, >
> http://www.cesames.net/fichier.php?id=370) that go beyond UML while
> > still not fact-oriented.
>
> Thanks for referring to this, but the link goes to a paper that
> should
not be
> distributed (see its header), are you able to take it down? The
distributable
> paper is at
> http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=822748
> and slides at
> http://conradbock.org/ontological-product-modeling-short-slides.pdf
>
> > We found that SysML is not as good to be a basement of overall
> MBSE > initiative. We consider many other alternatives that more
> fond of > ontology.
>
> UML 2 introduced significant logical interpretations that are carried
over to
> SysML. The above paper uses UML. A similar paper on onto behavior
> modeling also uses UML (http://dx.doi.org/10.5381/jot.2011.10.1.a3).
>
> Conrad (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (011)
|