Date post: | 31-Mar-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | christopher-wile |
View: | 223 times |
Download: | 0 times |
1LMC_SFLMC_SF
Sanford FriedenthalSanford FriedenthalINCOSE Liaison/ OMG SE DSIG ChairINCOSE Liaison/ OMG SE DSIG ChairLockheed Martin CorporationLockheed Martin Corporation(703) 293-5557(703) [email protected]@lmco.com
UML for SEUML for SERequirements ReviewRequirements Review
INCOSE IWINCOSE IW
Tampa, FloridaTampa, Florida
February 4-5, 2003February 4-5, 2003
2LMC_SFLMC_SF
Requirements ReviewRequirements Review• PurposePurpose
– Review requirements in the Draft RFP for “UML for Systems Review requirements in the Draft RFP for “UML for Systems Engineering” dated Jan 20, 2003 rev AEngineering” dated Jan 20, 2003 rev A
– URL - http://syseng.omg.org/SE_UML_Profile_RFP.htmURL - http://syseng.omg.org/SE_UML_Profile_RFP.htm
• AgendaAgenda
Tue, Feb 4 9:00 – 12:00Tue, Feb 4 9:00 – 12:00• SE DSIG Overview & SE UML Req’ts Overview – S. FriedenthalSE DSIG Overview & SE UML Req’ts Overview – S. Friedenthal• RFP Process and Roadmap – Roger BurkhartRFP Process and Roadmap – Roger Burkhart• UML 2 Status and Proposal Summary – Cris KobrynUML 2 Status and Proposal Summary – Cris Kobryn• An Application of UML for SE – Andrew WinklerAn Application of UML for SE – Andrew Winkler
Wed, Feb 5 9:00- 4:00Wed, Feb 5 9:00- 4:00• Detailed walk-thru of requirements in draft RFPDetailed walk-thru of requirements in draft RFP
3LMC_SFLMC_SF
SE DSIG OverviewSE DSIG Overview
4LMC_SFLMC_SF
SE DSIG BackgroundSE DSIG Background
• Joint INCOSE / OMG Initiative to extend UML to Joint INCOSE / OMG Initiative to extend UML to SESE
• Chartered Systems Engineering Domain Special Chartered Systems Engineering Domain Special Interest Group (SE DSIG) in July ‘01Interest Group (SE DSIG) in July ‘01
• SE DSIG kickoff in Sept ‘01SE DSIG kickoff in Sept ‘01
• Aligned with ISO AP-233 Systems Engineering Aligned with ISO AP-233 Systems Engineering data interchange standarddata interchange standard
5LMC_SFLMC_SF
SE DSIG GoalsSE DSIG Goals
• 20022002– Analyze requirements and candidate Analyze requirements and candidate
approaches for UML for SE approaches for UML for SE – Influence UML 2.0 responses to address SE Influence UML 2.0 responses to address SE
concernsconcerns
• 20032003– Issue RFP for UML for Systems EngineeringIssue RFP for UML for Systems Engineering– Support Submission teamsSupport Submission teams– Determine follow-on roadmapDetermine follow-on roadmap
6LMC_SFLMC_SF
Roadmap to “UML for SE” RFPRoadmap to “UML for SE” RFP
SE SE Concept Concept
ModelModel
SE UMLSE UMLProto. &Proto. &
Eval.Eval.
SE Req’tsSE Req’tsAnalysisAnalysis
AP-233, OMGAP-233, OMG & INCOSE& INCOSE
InputsInputs
Issues &Issues &ApproachesApproaches
SE UMLSE UMLRFI RFI
UML Meta-ModelUML Meta-Model& Profiles& Profiles
IndustryIndustryResponsesResponses
UML UML V2.0V2.0InputInput
Other sourcesOther sourcesSE UMLSE UMLProfileProfile
RFP prepRFP prep
SE DSIG /SE DSIG /UML 2.0 UML 2.0
CollaborationsCollaborations
UML forUML forSE RFPSE RFP
7LMC_SFLMC_SF
Top Level Conceptual Model – Draft 8Top Level Conceptual Model – Draft 8Domain
of Interest
SE_Thing
System
Property
StructurePhysicalProperty
Environment
C
C
SystemRequirement
statement of
Interacts with
exhibits
C
allocated to
Stakeholder Need
Stakeholder
satisfied by
represented by
has
allocated to budgeted to
SystemView
has view
derived from
Behavior
C
PropertyReference
reference for
Category
categorizes
8LMC_SFLMC_SF
UML for SE Req’ts AnalysisUML for SE Req’ts Analysis• SE UML Requirements Analysis V0.4 Nov 2002SE UML Requirements Analysis V0.4 Nov 2002
– Initial version July ‘02/updated to V0.4 Nov ‘02Initial version July ‘02/updated to V0.4 Nov ‘02– Identifies req’ts, candidate SE UML approaches, and issuesIdentifies req’ts, candidate SE UML approaches, and issues– Made available as early input to UML V2.0 submittersMade available as early input to UML V2.0 submitters– Resulting req’ts are input to RFP for UML for SEResulting req’ts are input to RFP for UML for SE
• Primary SourcesPrimary Sources– UML specificationsUML specifications– SE Conceptual ModelSE Conceptual Model– SE UML RFI responsesSE UML RFI responses– SE UML prototypingSE UML prototyping– UML V2.0 submitter InteractionUML V2.0 submitter Interaction– Related papersRelated papers– Other sources as inputsOther sources as inputs
9LMC_SFLMC_SF
System UML Modeling (Notional)System UML Modeling (Notional)
Fly
Pilot
*
*
Land
Take-off
Taxi
ATC
*
**
*
*
*
*
* *
*
*
* *
*
Power-up
Power-down
Ready Degraded
-Weight
Airplane
-Length
Fuselage
-Span
Wing
-Diameter
Engine
12
1
21
1
Controller
Aileron
Elevator
Flap
Engine
NavigationProcessor
Control SystemProcessor
Pilot I/FProcessor
LAN
AirplaneATC Pilot
Request to proceed
Authorize
Power-up
Initiate power-up
Direct taxiway
Report Status
Executed cmds
Initiate Taxi
Safety ModelSafety Model Performance ModelPerformance Model
Structure ModelsStructure Models
Behavior ModelsBehavior Models
Gain Compensation 1/S 1/S
Dy namics
+-
X(t) Y(t)
10LMC_SFLMC_SF
Summary of Perceived UML 1.x Summary of Perceived UML 1.x Limitations (Partial List) Limitations (Partial List)
• Continuous time behaviorContinuous time behavior• Decision tree (e.g. support for trade studies)Decision tree (e.g. support for trade studies)• Hierarchical modeling of scenarios and behaviorHierarchical modeling of scenarios and behavior• Input/output flow (including data and mass/energy flow)Input/output flow (including data and mass/energy flow)• Integration with other specialty engineering modelsIntegration with other specialty engineering models• Integration with geometric and spatial models Integration with geometric and spatial models • Parametric relationships (e.g. performance models)Parametric relationships (e.g. performance models)• Performance and physical characteristics (incl probabilities)Performance and physical characteristics (incl probabilities)• Physical interfaces and connectionsPhysical interfaces and connections• Problem definition and causal analysisProblem definition and causal analysis• Requirements constructsRequirements constructs• System, subsystem, element & component representationsSystem, subsystem, element & component representations• Terminology harmonizationTerminology harmonization• Verification and validation resultsVerification and validation results
11LMC_SFLMC_SF
UML Revision StatusUML Revision Status
• Current Version is UMLCurrent Version is UML– V1.41 sent to ISO V1.41 sent to ISO – V1.5 = V1.41 + action semanticsV1.5 = V1.41 + action semantics
• UML V2.0 RFP’s UML V2.0 RFP’s – SuperstructureSuperstructure– InfrastructureInfrastructure– OCLOCL– Diagram InterchangeDiagram Interchange
• Multiple submittersMultiple submitters
• Final submissions due Jan ’03 / vote in March ‘03Final submissions due Jan ’03 / vote in March ‘03
12LMC_SFLMC_SF
SE DSIG / UML V2.0 CollaborationSE DSIG / UML V2.0 Collaboration
• SE DSIG Collaboration goals to ensure UML V2 SE DSIG Collaboration goals to ensure UML V2 provides provides
• direct support for SE where practicaldirect support for SE where practical• doesn’t preclude the ability to profiledoesn’t preclude the ability to profile
• Significant collaboration with U2P team and othersSignificant collaboration with U2P team and others
13LMC_SFLMC_SF
RFP for UML for SE - DraftRFP for UML for SE - DraftRequirements OverviewRequirements Overview
14LMC_SFLMC_SF
RFP for UML for SERFP for UML for SE
• Draft RFP (Jan 20, 2003)Draft RFP (Jan 20, 2003)– OMG Doc # OMG Doc # syseng/2003-01-02syseng/2003-01-02 – http://syseng.omg.org/SE_UML_Profile_RFP.htmhttp://syseng.omg.org/SE_UML_Profile_RFP.htm
• Scheduled reviewsScheduled reviews– OMG Meeting – Jan 28 – 30, 2003OMG Meeting – Jan 28 – 30, 2003– INCOSE IW – Feb 4-5, 2003INCOSE IW – Feb 4-5, 2003
• Issue OMG Orlando Meeting – March 28, 2003Issue OMG Orlando Meeting – March 28, 2003
• Initial Submissions to RFP – Jan 12, 2004Initial Submissions to RFP – Jan 12, 2004
15LMC_SFLMC_SF
RFP OutlineRFP Outline
1.1. IntroductionIntroduction
2.2. Architectural ContextArchitectural Context
3.3. Adoption ProcessAdoption Process
4.4. Instructions for SubmittersInstructions for Submitters
5.5. General Requirements on ProposalsGeneral Requirements on Proposals
6.6. Specific Requirements on Proposals Specific Requirements on Proposals
Appendix A: References and GlossaryAppendix A: References and Glossary
16LMC_SFLMC_SF
Scope of RFPScope of RFP
• Focuses on general purpose modeling of a system Focuses on general purpose modeling of a system – Includes both software and hardware systemsIncludes both software and hardware systems
– System level vs detailed hw/sw implementation System level vs detailed hw/sw implementation models (code, 3D geometry, VHDL, ..)models (code, 3D geometry, VHDL, ..)
– Integrate with discipline specific models (I.e. Integrate with discipline specific models (I.e. reliability, safety, ..)reliability, safety, ..)
17LMC_SFLMC_SF
Evaluation Criteria (6.8)Evaluation Criteria (6.8)
• Ease of useEase of use• UnambiguousUnambiguous• PrecisePrecise• CompleteComplete• ScalableScalable• Adaptable to different domainsAdaptable to different domains• Capable of model interchangeCapable of model interchange• Capable of diagram interchangeCapable of diagram interchange• Process and method independentProcess and method independent• Compliant with UML metamodelCompliant with UML metamodel• VerifiableVerifiable
18LMC_SFLMC_SF
RFP Outline (Cont.)RFP Outline (Cont.)
6.6. Specific Requirements on ProposalsSpecific Requirements on Proposals1.1. Problem StatementProblem Statement
2.2. Scope of Proposals SoughtScope of Proposals Sought
3.3. Relationship to Existing OMG SpecificationsRelationship to Existing OMG Specifications
4.4. Related Activities, Documents & StandardsRelated Activities, Documents & Standards
5.5. Mandatory RequirementsMandatory Requirements
6.6. Optional RequirementsOptional Requirements
7.7. Issues to be discussedIssues to be discussed– Sample problem descriptionSample problem description
8.8. Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation Criteria
9.9. Other Information unique to this RFPOther Information unique to this RFP– GlossaryGlossary
10.10. RFP TimetableRFP Timetable
19LMC_SFLMC_SF
Mandatory Requirements (6.5)Mandatory Requirements (6.5)
• SE UML shall provide the capability to model:SE UML shall provide the capability to model:– StructureStructure– BehaviorBehavior– PropertyProperty– RequirementRequirement– VerificationVerification– OtherOther
20LMC_SFLMC_SF
StructureStructure
• Hierarchy of systemsHierarchy of systems
• Types of system componentsTypes of system components
• Interconnection of systemsInterconnection of systems
• Environment and system boundaryEnvironment and system boundary
• DeploymentDeployment
• System storeSystem store
21LMC_SFLMC_SF
BehaviorBehavior• Functional transformation of inputs to outputsFunctional transformation of inputs to outputs
• Function activation/deactivationFunction activation/deactivation– control inputcontrol input– control operatorscontrol operators– events/conditionsevents/conditions
• State based behaviorsState based behaviors
• Allocation of behavior to systems Allocation of behavior to systems
22LMC_SFLMC_SF
PropertyProperty
• Property association (I.e. system, I/O, function, ..)Property association (I.e. system, I/O, function, ..)
• Property attributes (type, value, prob distr...)Property attributes (type, value, prob distr...)
• Time reference (global variable, time varying Time reference (global variable, time varying properties)properties)
• Parametric model (parametric relationships)Parametric model (parametric relationships)
• Parametric plotsParametric plots
23LMC_SFLMC_SF
RequirementsRequirements
• Requirement type (functional, performance, physical)Requirement type (functional, performance, physical)
• Requirement attribute (criticality, TBD, verif status, )Requirement attribute (criticality, TBD, verif status, )
• Effectiveness measure (optimization criterion)Effectiveness measure (optimization criterion)
• Requirement relationships (allocation, traceability, ..)Requirement relationships (allocation, traceability, ..)
24LMC_SFLMC_SF
Requirement (Cont.)Requirement (Cont.)
• Problem (ability to satisfy a req’t or need)Problem (ability to satisfy a req’t or need)
• Problem association with systems, components, ..Problem association with systems, components, ..
• Problem cause (relationship to root cause)Problem cause (relationship to root cause)
25LMC_SFLMC_SF
VerificationVerification
• Test case (stimulus and expected response)Test case (stimulus and expected response)
• Verification result Verification result
• Requirement verification, which compares verif Requirement verification, which compares verif result with requirementresult with requirement
• Verification procedure (steps to execute test case)Verification procedure (steps to execute test case)
• Verification system which implements the Verification system which implements the procedureprocedure
26LMC_SFLMC_SF
OtherOther• Model view as subset of model elements (default Model view as subset of model elements (default
diagrams and user defined views)diagrams and user defined views)
• System role as subset of system behavior, properties, System role as subset of system behavior, properties, and structure to support and structure to support
• Topology as graph of nodes and arcsTopology as graph of nodes and arcs
• Representation for simple geometric relationshipsRepresentation for simple geometric relationships
27LMC_SFLMC_SF
UML CustomizationUML Customization
• Define UML constructs to support SE requirementsDefine UML constructs to support SE requirements
– Use UML as-is where applicable (I.e. a function Use UML as-is where applicable (I.e. a function can be represented by an activity)can be represented by an activity)
– Customize UML constructs using UML built in Customize UML constructs using UML built in extension mechanisms (I.e. profile)extension mechanisms (I.e. profile)• Rename model elementRename model element• Add attributes and constraintsAdd attributes and constraints
28LMC_SFLMC_SF
SummarySummary• Need system modeling language to address system Need system modeling language to address system
complexity and bridge systems & software gapcomplexity and bridge systems & software gap
• Systems modeling requires robust capabilitiesSystems modeling requires robust capabilities
• Extending UML offers a potential solutionExtending UML offers a potential solution
• INCOSE/OMG established SE DSIGINCOSE/OMG established SE DSIG
• RFP is initial milestone towards developing a standard RFP is initial milestone towards developing a standard SE modeling languageSE modeling language
29LMC_SFLMC_SF
More InformationMore Information
http//syseng.omg.orghttp//syseng.omg.org
• OMG SE DSIG WebsiteOMG SE DSIG Website
30LMC_SFLMC_SF
SE UML Definition DependenciesSE UML Definition Dependencies
DependencyDependency
PropertyParametric Relationship
Item
Component
Structure
Time Reference
Port
Activity
Behavior
Function
Input/Output
State (finite)
Activation / Deactivation Event
Event
Control Operator
InteractionSystem
Environment
Requirement
Test Case
Verification ResultRequirement Verification
Problem
Need
Connection
Requirement Traceability
Action
31LMC_SFLMC_SF
Challenges to Adopting SE UMLChallenges to Adopting SE UML• Developing a robust modeling language that addresses the Developing a robust modeling language that addresses the
broad system modeling requirementsbroad system modeling requirements
• The evolution of model based methodologiesThe evolution of model based methodologies
• Acceptance of the model based approach by the SE Acceptance of the model based approach by the SE community, implementers, and customerscommunity, implementers, and customers
• Ability to integrate the SE models with other discipline-Ability to integrate the SE models with other discipline-specific models (i.e. software, hardware, simulation and specific models (i.e. software, hardware, simulation and analysis, etc)analysis, etc)
• Ensuring adequate infrastructure to support the use of Ensuring adequate infrastructure to support the use of models, including tools and trainingmodels, including tools and training
• Continued adaptation and evolution of the modeling Continued adaptation and evolution of the modeling frameworkframework
32LMC_SFLMC_SF
RFP Preparation MilestonesRFP Preparation Milestones
• OMG SE DSIG Review – Jan 28-30, 2003OMG SE DSIG Review – Jan 28-30, 2003
• INCOSE IW Review – Feb 4-5, 2003INCOSE IW Review – Feb 4-5, 2003
• Update RFPUpdate RFP
• Incorporate Sample Problem DescriptionIncorporate Sample Problem Description
• Submit to OMG – March 3Submit to OMG – March 3
• Review and finalize – March 24Review and finalize – March 24
• OMG Vote to issue – March 28OMG Vote to issue – March 28