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

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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)

8. 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)