SysML 2.0 Requirements for Visualization OMG 4Q2016 Meeting Coronado, CA 12/6 – 12/8/2016

Topics Services High-Level Requirement Categories Specified Diagram Types User-Defined Diagram Types Pallet Element and Presentation Visualizations of Geometry and States Visualization of Element/Diagram Compare

Services Primary Service Other Related Services “Create, read, update, delete, and execute viewpoints” Other Related Services “. . . Model queries . . .” “. . . Model execution . . .” “. . . View changes . . .” “. . . View/execute links to other data . . .” . . . Nearly all others (specialized queries)

Capabilities – to be required? View Definition Highly flexible viewpoint specification Data query/filter capability Data transformation Interactive behaviors Standard SysML diagram type definitions Extension for user-defined and domain-specific visualizations View Generation Defined graphical and layout styles for the nine core SysML diagram types Extensions for graphical definitions of diagram objects (nodes, edges, connectors) Extensions for diagram layout and style Defined extension framework for visualization Semantic filter, zoom and pan capability Static and dynamic view generation Facilities for compare/differencing views of model data (element, diagram and data set levels) Capability to visualize model execution View Export Static and dynamic view export Document generation

Concrete Syntax & Standard Diagrams Requirement – The SysML specification shall provide means to visualize the standard SysML diagram types. Considerations/Approaches – No longer specify standard SysML diagrams and syntax, instead providing only the abstract capability to define viewpoints that are known to be a superset of those required for standard diagram types. Specify only SysML diagram types (viewpoints), but allow user-defined syntax within the constrains of the specified viewpoints Specify some/all SysML diagrams with a set of defined executable viewpoint, providing set of visualization definitions that result in diagrams that look like the current concrete syntax of SysML 1.X (Somewhat dependent on formalism connection to UML) Maintain current specification of SysML diagrams and syntax, leaving implementation of the concrete syntax within a viewpoint unspecified. Recommendation – Specify standard viewpoints and syntax for the standard 9 SysML diagram types

User-Defined Diagrams Requirements – Current requirements only specify requirements to map data, define viewpoints and generate views. Examples – “The viewpoint shall be able to define data model object types within the metamodel” “The viewpoint shall be able to define data attributes describing the data model objects” Considerations/Approaches – Specify additional (domain-specific) diagram types with SysML 1.X-style concrete syntax Specify additional diagram types with standard executable viewpoints Leave domain-specific extensions abstract, leaving both concrete syntax and viewpoint implementation to the user or future dependent specifications. Recommendation – Leave extensions abstract. Only specify mechanisms for mapping, view definition and view generation.

Visualization for Geometry and States Scope – “Light” visualization of geometrical constructs (boxes, cones, spheres, etc. Apply geometries for states (instance specs?) Not to replace visualizations of 3D geometries from Mechanical domain Requirements – Currently, none Considerations/Approaches – Continue to NOT specify constructs for basic geometries Require facilities for capturing and rendering basic geometries Recommendation – Enhance the language (along with standard units and measures) to include basic geometry for visualization (Credit: AGI, Inc.) Artist concept of Juno. (Credit: NASA/JPL)

Pallet Elements and Presentation Scope – Presentation of pallet in tools, not inclusive of defined syntax Elements, meta data, etc. (most tools do this today) Requirements – Currently, none Considerations/Approaches – Specify (prescribe) pallet and standard presentation of syntactical elements for use in SME Leave presentation of syntactical elements to vendors Recommendation – Continue to leave implementation of syntactical elements to implementation of language (vendor-defined)