1LMC_SFLMC_SF

Sanford FriedenthalSanford FriedenthalINCOSE Liaison/ OMG SE DSIG ChairINCOSE Liaison/ OMG SE DSIG ChairLockheed Martin CorporationLockheed Martin Corporation(703) 293-5557(703) 293-5557sanford.friedenthal@lmco.comsanford.friedenthal@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