Topics

1

Uml Process / Relationships between Design Abstraction Layers

« on: June 24, 2024, 07:26:46 pm »

I'm working up a SysML design ontology with the 'normal' abstraction layers for our industry: System > Functional > Logical > Physical.
By chance, I'll be broadly following an approach that was previously described in this paper [1] (though I only found the paper after I'd documented my own approach!).
I'll be using Blocks to represent structural entities at System level (i.e. 'The System'), as well as Blocks in each of the lower abstraction layers - e.g. maybe a "FunctionalBlock" classifier to represent a function called 'Routing Function' that routes data around the system. No shockers there.

I'm fairly sure of the SysML Relationships I want to use between the layers, but I wanted to canvas opinion on how to link structural Blocks in the System layer to those in the Function layer. There are many options with different implications. E.g:

- Aggregation (the system as an Aggregation of functions) - this implies that after destroying the system the functions remain, but I kind of like that in terms of building a catalogue of common definitions for functions that I can then use in multiple product designs...
- Composition (the system Composed of functions) - maybe makes more sense in that once the System is destroyed there is also no longer a group of Functions to do the things that it was previously doing...?!
- Allocation (Functions Allocated to a top-level 'System' definition) - seems a bit looser to me and possibly implies something a little bottom-up rather than top-down, which I'm not comfortable with. My Allocations will go down, not up (i.e. Allocating functionality onto lower-level components)
- Association - too weak for Structural definition
- Containment (the system Contains functions) - again, probably too weak for my liking... the means of decomposition wouldn't be implicit enough without further explanation of how the structural function layer is contained within the system layer


Would appreciate any thoughts!


[1] https://incose.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2017.00350.x

2

Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / MDG profile: Port typed by InterfaceBlock

« on: May 16, 2024, 12:58:40 am »

I am defining a SysML profile using the metamodel tools.
I've defined a bespoke Stereotype that extends the metaclass 'Port' (let's call it 'PortNew').
I've defined a bespoke Stereotype of the metaclass InterfaceBlock using a Generalization (let's call it 'IFNew').
I've added 'PortNew' to a new toolbox and can add it to Blocks on a BDD. However, I want to be able to set up the profile so that any time I add a 'PortNew' to a Block it uses IFNew as the Port's interface definition - i.e. as 'Type' under the Port Element Attributes.

Is this possible? I can't figure out how to set it up in the metamodel.
tia

3

Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / [SELF-SOLVED] Redefining Quicklinker captions

« on: May 07, 2024, 11:20:04 pm »

I'm building an MDG technology using a Profile Metamodel and finding it difficult to redefine the Quicklinker captions. I've looked around online and it seems that this has been a bit of a buggy area over time. I'm in 16.1 (1628).

Specifically, I have a created new Stereotype 'validate' that I want to use to show that a Requirement is <<validated>> by another Element.
My 'validate' Stereotype redefines "SysML1.4::trace", and everything works fine except that the Quicklinker sub-menu caption still says 'Traced To'. I would like the caption to say "Validates" or "Validated by" (depending on the direction in which the Relationship is drawn). Is this possible?

_MeaningForwards and _MeaningBackwards (when applied to my 'validate' Stereotype) do not seem to make any difference in the Quicklinker nor in the Traceability window.

Thanks for any pointers!

4

General Board / Style Guides

« on: January 11, 2024, 08:30:18 pm »

Hi all, general question here. What are your experiences with trying to enhance modelling commonality across a business by using SysML Style Guides, or similar concept?
I have so far been reluctant to create a literal Style Guide type document for our engineering team, instead I've been creating metamodels, ontologies and templates within EA. Just wondered what other people's experiences have been and if there are any top tips. Thanks!

(Obviously we have to pretend that the entire team buys into the idea and actually attempts to follow any best practice recommendations...)

5

General Board / ItemFlows & ObjectFlows on IBDs and swimlaned ADs

« on: November 29, 2023, 09:42:54 pm »

I probably missed something obvious here, but search hasn't turned out a suitable answer.

Our team have defined ItemFlows on BDDs, connecting Blocks using Ports.
We also have Activity Diagrams that are swimlaned, with the lanes are classified using the same Blocks as on the IBDs. There are ObjectFlows connecting Actions in the different swimlanes (implying that an Object has been passed from one classified Object to another).
So some of our ItemFlows between the Ports on the BDD are essentially the same as the ObjectFlows between classified swimlanes on the AD.

I appreciate that behavioural models are often independent of the structure, but once we start applying classifiers to swimlanes it starts to make sense to draw this equivalence.

Is there a way to make EA understand that the IBD ItemFlows and AD ObjectFlows are equivalent?
Any help/discussion greatly appreciated!

6

General Board / Configuration Control of Elements in distributed Packages

« on: November 24, 2023, 11:33:25 pm »

I've done a quick forum search but apologies if this has been answered previously.

Context: EA15.2

I'd like to be able to record a 'baseline' of a group of related Elements as a 'snapshot' of their status in time (simply the 'Name', 'Type', 'Status' and 'Version' properties of each Element would do).
The Elements I want to include are in Packages distrbuted through the model, living alongside various other Elements that I don't want to include in my baseline. So simply doing Package baselines would mean that I am capturing information I don't want (i.e. the status of unrelated Elements).

The overall idea is to be able to say, for example, "v1.0 of UseCase1 was Allocated to v2.3 of ElementXX, and Refines v1.1 of RequirementYY..." (...not literally as a sentence, but in some kind of Configuration Index Document )
It will then let us manage change later on, so if a lower-level Element is changed (version incremented) and it belongs to one or more baselines, we can assess the impact on those baselines.

Please can someone suggest the best way to tackle this?
I'm not too bothered about the method or the output format. I'm open to creating Custom Documents, using EAdocX, scripting, SQL...
If the question is too vague or confusing, please let me know.

7

General Board / Show Elements in Compartments as well as on Diagram

« on: May 03, 2023, 08:53:45 pm »

I have a Block on a diagram. In my project browser, the Block contains (nested underneath it) an Activity. There is no SysML relationship between the two.
On the diagram, the Activity is shown in the Block's 'owned behaviours' compartment. Good so far.
However, when I then put the Activity on the same diagram*, it no longer appears in the Block's 'owned behaviours' compartment. (* I'd like to do this as I'm drawing a model ontology diagram which explains millions on things all on one diagram, sorry if that makes you cringe)

I understand that this behaviour - hiding the Activity from the Compartment - is intentional ("If a compartment is not shown, it might be necessary to locate and remove from the diagram the corresponding related or child elements, save the diagram, and reload the diagram to refresh the display of compartments" - https://www.sparxsystems.com/enterprise_architect_user_guide/15.2/model_domains/block_element_compartments.html). But is there any way at all to have the Activity listed in the 'Owned Behaviours' compartment as well as appearing on my diagram? Maybe some radio button that I've missed in EA somewhere...?

Thanks!

8

General Board / Simulating ObjectFlow on Activity Diagram

« on: March 07, 2023, 11:12:32 pm »

Hi all. I've searched this forum and others but can't find the answer to this question. I'm sure it's something simple that someone can explain to me!

I'm trying to run some simple Activity Diagrams in EA16.1.1625 using the 'Simulate' function.
When I hit 'Start', I can see the AD execute each Action in turn when they are linked by ControlFlows, but whenever it gets to an ObjectFlow the simulation simply ends. The 'Simulation' pane logs "Simulation Ended". This happens regardless of whether or not I use ActionPins.

Is it as simple as I need to actually define the Object that will pass over the ObjectFlow, and then it will be able to simulate the ObjectFlow? (It sounds like the obvious answer, but I thought I wouldn't need to do that because an ObjectFlow is semantically also a ControlFlow, so I hoped it might effectively pass a 'null' object and continue...).

Thanks for any answers