New Thoughts On Not So Random Things…

SysML 0.99 – an improvement?

Been busy with other things for a while, but SysML is still on the back of my mind. After the reviews by OMG and INCOSE, the two competing standards have merged again. Looking at the presentation of february 15th on the SysML site, things may have turned for the better – the two standards are merged and at the same time a certain amount of review comments have been incorporated. Next step is the extended deadline of April 3rd.Meanwhile, Artisan have announced a Webinar on SysML for next tuesday. I’m booked at that time, so hopefully there’s a re-run or second round later on. Any information on what is told there is welcome – just post a comment here.

A merger…

Looks like I missed something – a single, small line on a cramped page on the SysML page of OMG:

SysML Merge Team

SysML Specification Draft v0.99 ad/06-02-01) – 13 Feb 2006&lt

Turns out the two teams have merged. I wonder what the result is going to be…

B.t.w.: why is this line hidden on http://syseng.omg.org/SysML.htm, while the link http://syseng.omg.org" takes me to the SE-DSIG page, which does not list this document?

Silence on SysML

The INCOSE review comments on SysML submissions I wrote about earlier", seem to have had some impact on the evaluation meeting in Tampa, on February 14th and 15th. After two days, I haven’t been able to find a single news item on the results of the meeting – not on the OMG site, nor on the site of sysml.org of the individual companies that form the submission teams. What’s the verdict?

SysML is ‘just not ready’

On the OMGs SysML page, results have been published of a review on two competing draft standards for SysML (UML profile for Systems Engineering). I’m not the world’s greatest expert on languages, nor on Systems Engineering, but the issue list and the executive summary seem to indicate that both specification teams have ignored their main stakeholder: the system engineer who’s supposed to be using SysML. How else can a statement like this (from the executive summary) be part of the review comments:

Missing relationship

Issue 13.00 describes a missing relationship. In the words of Michael Latta: €œNeither specification provides any semantics for allocation. They both treat allocation as a comment/documentation element. The semantics for allocation are one of the core components of Systems Engineering practice and research results for the last 30 years. ….

I think it’s going to take another while before SysML is really going to be considered for serious use by our world’s system engineers.