With 700.000 to 1,000,000 people engaged in systems engineering world wide I
suggest that declaring SysML a "defacto standard" is a clear case of premature
immaculation. (01)
When the SysML project was started several years ago the systemists in the
crowd urged that a formal semiotic base be established that acknowledged more
than state-determined systems and prescient design. The group decided that such
a bold step would threaten the then popular SE tools such as CORE, Cradle, etc.
so they agreed to pursue just a "next generation" of the existing situation.
Now that SysML, as evolved from that knowledge base, is clearly insufficient
for modeling context sensitive, autopoietic and autocatalytic systems let alone
cybersecure systems it is rather short-sighted to recommend evolving SysML.
Adopting the beacon of procedural programming and prescient design as your
navigation aid is not likely to be sufficient, either. (02)
The SysML tribe is not going to be successful in pasting security and autonomy
considerations on to a SysML that can accommodate > 300 designers in one
project, particularly when inevitably a composite of more than a dozen
heterogeneous viewpoints. (03)
Now that a reasonable amount of experience has been gained with the prototype,
Throw it away and give your new knowledge free range. (04)
There are goals and there are stretch goals. A Goal is agreed necessary and the
participants have reasonable confidence they know how to achieve it. A Stretch
Goal is one that the participants have no good idea how to achieve it but,
agreeing is is necessary, commit to pursuit. Because societal needs for higher
order systems continues to increase but the systems community has not been
responsive for about 15 years it is clearly time for committing to a stretch
goal. (05)
Suggest we all consider Anatoly's idea more fully. (06)
Jack Ring (07)
On Feb 23, 2012, at 8:30 PM, henson graves wrote: (08)
> 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.
>
> Regards
> - Henson
>
> -----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
>
> Conrad,
> Thank you for pointing me to the right links for your works.
>
> I appreciate your ideas about adding ontology to product, behavior and
> project descriptions languages, especially architecture languages.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> Best regards,
> Anatoly
>
>> -----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
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/ (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (010)
|