Saulius Pavalkis

Avatar

I'm Global User Support Manager and Analyst in MagicDraw R&D team for over 10 years with increasing responsibilities. My major expertise area is model-based requirements engineering. I'm the owner of a new Cameo Requirements Modeler product, which has been recently introduced in MagicDraw product line. I hold a PhD in model traceability from Kaunas University of Technology (KTU). I also hold multiple professional certificates: OMG-Certified UML Professional, OMG-Certified Expert in BPM, ITIL V3, OMG-Certified Systems Modeling Professional. I have written multiple research and practical articles in model-based software design. I'm the founder and chief editor of modelling community blog (blog.nomagic.com) dedicated for sharing practical model-based engineering experience.

Comprehensive Overview of the Application of MBSE at JPL NASA

 All, Event Feedback & Slides, Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), Overview  No Responses »
Oct 202014
 

roverJPL NASA is successfully applying MBSE to real project systems engineering problems across a wide landscape of project types, activities and lifecycle phases.  Approximately 20 development tasks are applying MBSE at JPL across the full lifecycle. JPL’s Mission for NASA is Robotics space exploration in following areas: Mars, Solar system,  Exoplanets,  Astrophysics,  Earth Science, and Interplanetary network. MBSE is used in the following missions:

  • Mars 2020,
  • Orion,
  • DARPA,
  • The Jupiter Europa Orbiter,
  • Europa Clipper,
  • The Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP),
  • other.

The following comprehensive presentation from INCOSE International MBSE Workshop gives a overview of MBSE application status at JPL:

  • Value of using MBSE,
  • The JPL Product Life Cycle,
  • Modeling infrastructure elements,
  • Strategy,
  • Path to apply MBSE,
  • Motivations for using MBSE,
  • Analysis methods,
  • Other.

MBSE is used for:

  • System model framework specification,
  • Automated mass counting,
  • Integrated power and energy analysis,
  • Integrated data throughput analysis,
  • Configuration-management,
  • Fault protection design verification,
  • Discrete event simulation,
  • Advanced systems design and analysis.

Following motivations were identified for using MBSE:

  • Strengthen the quality of formulation products by allowing exploration of more comprehensive options for space and more rapid analysis of alternatives
  • Perform early validation of system designs
  • Give systems engineers time to do more engineering analysis and less paper management
  • Significantly improve the quality of communications and understanding among system and subsystem engineers
  • Achieve greater design reuse
  • Align with the expectations and work habits of the next generation of engineering talent
    • This is the way new engineers are being trained and the way many of our early career engineers want to work

    But the bottom line is to:

    • Reduce the number of product and mission defects in the face of growing complexity
    • And increase productivity and reduce costs

See the full presentation and what JPL MBSE practitioners say:

  • “Europa team was able to study 3 distinct mission concepts for the resources usually sufficient to study only 1 or 2, and the high quality of all 3 studies was lauded by the Hubbard Review Board and by NASA HQ.”
  • “Development of the initial system model … took a fraction of the time it would otherwise have, by reusing modeling patterns and analyses learned earlier on EHM.”
  • “One thing that I’ve found is that the process of modeling leads to ‘escape discovery’. …capturing the details leads to a greater understanding of the system and makes errors or potential problem areas ‘pop out’.”
  • “We are able to evaluate 100s-1000s of consistent, structured, and transparent design options and explicitly compare cost/benefit in a fraction of the time and cost of conventional methods.”

[slideshare id=40511628&doc=06-iw14-mbseworkshop-applicationofmbseatjplthroughthelifecycle-nichols-lin-final-141020162929-conversion-gate01]

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Presentation “Integrated Model-Centric Engineering: The Application of MBSE at JPL Through the Life Cycle” was presented at INCOSE International MBSE Workshop January 26, 2014 by Dave Nichols and Chi Lin

NASA Perspective on Trends in Executable Models

 All, Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), Overview  No Responses »
Oct 132014
 
This poster focuses on the trends in UML simulation toolkits where tools interpret models instead of relying on generated code. This is an important development since it requires minimal configuration, can be used earlier in thelifecycle and can evolve as the design matures.
Poster was presented at 2011 IV&V Annual Workshop by Tom Gullion http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ivv/workshops/ivvworkshop_2011.html#.VDxMvRak-8Q

Modeling & Simulation of CubeSat

 All, Case Studies, Design & Innovations, Integrations, Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), Overview  No Responses »
Oct 122014
 
  • CubeSats are a class of research spacecraft called nano satellites.CubeSat
  • The cube-shaped satellites are approximately:
    • 10 cm long,
    • have a volume of about 946 cm3,
    • weigh about 1.4 kg.
  • CubeSats are flown as auxiliary payloads on previously planned missions.

MBSE for CubeSat: Generic CubeSat Reference Model and Simulation

Challenge

  • How do satellite states evolve throughout mission?
  • Does the vehicle design/operations meet all mission requirements?
  • How do changes in spacecraft mission parameters impact performance and requirements satisfaction?

Solution

  • Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is a key practice to advance systems engineering that can benefit CubeSat missions.
  • SysML as a graphical modeling language is used to model all aspects of a system.
  • CubeSat model including behavior part and interfacing with several simulation tools.
  • MBSE Tools:
    • Modeling: MagicDraw + SysML,
    • Simulation: Cameo Simulation Toolkit,
    • Integration: Phoenix Model Center,
    • Analytical Models: STK, and Matlab.

Integrated models and tools are critical to design and plan for these missions!

Results

  • Generic CubeSat reference model which other projects can use as a starting point for their mission specific CubeSat model.
  • Coupled analytic models with simulation capabilities.
  • Mission and Design Trade-Offs.
  • Achieved requirements verification for full end-to-end missions.
Integration with simulation tools

Integration with simulation tools

Details

Challenge

Conventional Systems Engineering approaches often neglect subsystem interaction, fail to capture the dynamic aspects of mission analysis, and are built as one-off solutions. These challenges are particularly problematic for CubeSats where components are usually physically integrated, the entire spacecraft is extremely constrained, and orbits are often unknown during mission design. MBSE addresses these challenges through the formal application of modeling to Systems Engineering processes. Successful application of MBSE requires integrating design, analysis, and simulation into a common framework.

Solution

The International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) Space Systems Working Group (SSWG) established the Space Systems MBSE Challenge team in 2007. The SSWG Challenge team has been investigating the applicability of MBSE for designing CubeSats since 2011. It is the fourth phase of development of a CubeSat model.

MBSE is used in CubeSat to create a system model that helps integrate other discipline specific engineering models and simulations. The system level model provides consistent source of system requirements, design, analysis, and verification. SysML is used to model all aspects of a system.

MBSE applicability in four CubeSat phases:

The first phase of SSWG CubeSat project created a CubeSat reference model that was applied to the Radio Aurora Explorer (RAX), a three unit CubeSat developed by SRI International and the Michigan Exploration Laboratory at the University of Michigan. The second phase focused on expanding the RAX CubeSat model to include modeling behaviors and interfacing with several Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) simulation tools. The third phase was comprised of two activities. The first was the development of a CubeSat enterprise model to capture cost and product lifecycle aspects for the mission spacecraft and problem domain. The second activity incorporated additional design and operational characteristics into the RAX model. The modeling effort starts anew in this fourth phase. The objective is a generic CubeSat reference model to provide a model that other projects can use as a starting point for their mission specific CubeSat model.

CubeSat simulation

CubeSat reference model

CubeSat reference model

Download (PDF, Unknown)

References:
1. Phoenix Integration MBSE Pak http://www.phoenix-int.com/software/mbse-pak.php

2. David Kaslow, Grant Soremekun, Hongman Kim, and Sara Spangelo. “Integrated Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Applied to the Simulation of a CubeSat Mission.” In Aerospace Conference, 2014 IEEE, pp. 1-14. IEEE, 2014

3. “Developing a CubeSat Model-Based System Engineering (MBSE) Reference Model – Interim Status” paper submitted to the 2015 IEEE Aerospace Conference by David Kaslow and Louise Anderson

4. Spangelo, Sara C., et al. “Applying model based systems engineering (mbse) to a standard cubesat.” Aerospace Conference, 2012 IEEE. IEEE, 2012. http://www.omgsysml.org/Applying_MBSE_to_a_Standard_CubeSat-Space_Systems_Challenge_Team.pdf

Credits goes to CubeSat challenge team http://www.omgwiki.org/MBSE/doku.php?id=mbse:space

INCOSE_logo_web

NASA_JPL_logo

Phoenix integration

Applying MBSE for Railways

 All, Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), Overview  No Responses »
Sep 112014
 

mapWe see the ongoing evolution of railway systems: rail vehicle and infrastructure-related systems manufacturers, transport and logistics companies, industry consultants, they all are pushing technology ahead with innovations. In order to ensure that the rail system will meet the future challenges, all of the above parties have to work together. Especially considering a safety-critical environment that introduces additional complexity: regulations, different considerations, and standards to be adhered.

No Magic has 15 years of expertise in applying model-based systems and software engineering across a wide range of industries. One of the main areas of application of our MBSE solution is a railway industry. We are here to help by combining what we know best: our experience, tools, best practices, methods, and strengths of standards compliance in the area of MBSE.

Companies such as Bombardier Transportation count on us when designing innovative products such as an electric locomotive TRAXX-AC3, featuring the last-mile diesel engine. TRAXX-AC3 is based on the most frequently sold and wide-spread locomotive series in Europe Bombardier TRAXX. Read more about MBSE applications in a railway industry: rail vehicles, transport & logistics, signaling & control, and intelligence.

BD

Download (PDF, Unknown)

More details

Area Company Project Solution
Rail Vehicles Bombardier Transportation. Bombardier Transportation is the rail equipment division of the Canadian firm Bombardier Inc. Bombardier Transportation is one of the world’s largest companies in the rail-equipment manufacturing and servicing industry. Designing innovative products: TRAXX-AC3 Locomotive. This is the newest generation TRAXX locomotive (the most frequently sold and wide-spread locomotives in Europe) and successor of the most successful AC2 modification. This electric locomotive features the last-mile diesel engine. This innovation makes it possible for an electric locomotive to bridge the gap between the place of arrival and the multi-modal freight terminal, the shunt yard, the harbor network or the client’s factory site. Client from Nov, 2005 through present. Benefiting from a complete MBSE solution well incorporated into Bombardier’s tool chain,  No Magic’s solution covers systems modeling, analysis, and simulation products, integration with IBM Rational DOORS, model based collaboration environment, and services covering training tailored for custom needs, model reviews, and tool customization.
Transport & Logistics Deutsche Bahn Systemtechnik GmbH. DB Systemtechnik covers a wide range of railway engineering in two business segments:consulting on the maintenance and redesign of rolling stock; and testing and certification for components and whole vehicles. Driving innovations, modernization, and expansion. Deutsche Bahn says: “Investing in the modernization and expansion of our fleet, our network and our facilities keeps us up-to-date and competitive while creating added value for our customers.” Client from Aug, 2012 through present. No Magic’s solution covers systems and data modeling products, model based collaboration environment, SysML and MBSE training and consultations, and transformation services.
Signaling & Control General Electric Transportation. GE Transportation (formerly GE Rail) manufactures equipment for the railroad, marine, mining, drilling and energy generation industries. GE Transportation’s solutions ensure safe, reliable yet optimized and cost efficient movement of trains covering automatic train protection & control systems, computer-based interlocking systems, signal data transmission systems, train detection systems. Support for mission critical solutions and services development. GE Transportation’s portfolio of signaling and train control of state of the art safety-critical solutions and services ensure safe, reliable, yet optimized and cost efficient movement of trains. MBSE is used to: improve the development process with the aid of formal methods; remove requirements ambiguity which natural language introduces; introduce formal modeling and code generation; do model-based process compliant with the CENELEC standards (i.e. the set of norms and methods used while implementing a railway product for the European market). Client from Sept, 2010 through present. No Magic’s solution covers systems modeling products, integration with IBM Rational DOORS, model based collaboration environment, SysML and MBSE onsite and online training, custom development, and migration from open source TOPCASED to MagicDraw.
Railway Intelligence Berner & Mattner Systemtechnik GmbH.  Consulting company for over a decade, managing sophisticated projects for railway operators and manufacturers of railway systems. Currently employs 450 professionals at 7 locations in Germany and Austria.  Improving communication using well developed and recognized standards. Berner & Mattner offers variety of services in complex projects. Leading companies such as Bombardier Transportation, Deutsche Bahn and many more have been placing their trust in Berner & Mattner’s expertise for years. Berner & Mattner is a pioneer in model-based technologies. UML and SysML standards are widely used for systems architecture specification with excellent results. Client from Mar, 2010 till Now. No Magic’s solution covers systems and software modeling products, including a model based collaboration environment.

Adoption of SysML by a Railway Signaling Manufacturer

 All, Case Studies, Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)  No Responses »
Aug 062014
 

ge-transportation-led-lighting-rail-tr6-trio-855x600_tcm201-54906This industrial case study reports the experience of a railway signaling manufacturer in introducing the SysML notation within its development process by means of the TOPCASED tool. Though the tool was later replaced by MagicDraw, the experience is useful to understand the potential of the notation for requirements formalization and analysis, together with the advantages and drawbacks of using an open-source tool in an industrial setting.

The move to MBSE

General Electric Transportation Systems is a company that produces safety-critical railway signaling applications. Given the nature of its products, in 2001, General Electric Transportation Systems started a collaboration with the University of Florence to improve its development process with the aid of formal methods. Along this path, the company introduced formal modeling and code generation by means of the Simulink/Stateflow platform, and defined a model-based process compliant with the CENELEC standards, the set of norms and methods to be used while implementing a railway product for the European market.

These activities were normally performed by General Electric Transportation Systems using a paper-based approach, with natural language documents completed by informal diagrams. Natural language is inherently ambiguous, and a more formal mean to express requirements was desirable. The OMG SysML language was seen as the solution to replace the traditional text-centric specifications with a formal notation. The open source tool TOPCASED was chosen to perform the first experimentation with SysML in a real project.

Reasons to move from TOPCASED to MagicDraw

  1. The SysML language appeared rather intuitive to users with a UML background, and the tool was easy to learn for people with confidence with the Eclipse platform. In general, electronic/telecommunications engineers encountered more hurdles than software engineers, since some basic principles of the model-view-controller pattern are required for a proficient usage of the technologies.
  2. Absence of proper documentation for the tool. Despite the large amount of literature on SysML, there was no complete tutorial to guide people that were new to both the tool and the language.
  3. The notation of internal block diagrams supported by the tool was not compliant to the one presented by the text chosen as a reference, and this caused a limited use of these diagrams.
  4. The stability of the tool. While the model was growing in size, the tool became slower and more prone to crashes, especially with the increasing number of traceability links between different diagrams.
  5. Mistrust in the tool. As a consequence, users did not experiment with many advanced features, such as the collaborative usage. The initial plan allowed the independent update of the model by different actors in different process phases, but ultimately it was the project leader that took care of the integration of the whole model, according to the input of the other participants.

At the end of the project the general opinion was that using an open-source tool to perform core activities in a company with time-to-market pressure and certification constraints was not a good option for two main reasons:

  1. Companies prefer products with a limited but stable number of functionalities, while lively maintained open-source tools such as TOPCASED tend to have several experimental features that are progressively tuned by the community according to the users feedback.
  2. Companies require a direct interface with the tool providers that takes responsibility if a problem occurs with the tool usage.

The choice of Magic Draw was driven by these considerations, and the tool actually confirmed the expectations of a more stable, documented and customer-supported platform.

Modeling state at GE Transportation today

Today the company is proficiently employing the tool on large projects, intensively exploiting collaborative usage features and with a generally good opinion of the tool maturity level, but all the official specifications required by the CENELEC norms continue to be manually edited using natural language documents. Assessors normally enter at the end of the development process to validate compliance with the standards, and require paper-like documents in order to have a complete picture of the activities performed by the company. While this implies a major effort in terms of production and maintenance of the documentation,  the investment in SysML pays off in terms of increased confidence in the quality of the specifications.

The full paper:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

This industrial case study was originally published at http://selab.fbk.eu/re11_download/industry/proceedings-short-papers/RE2011SIP004.pdf

Image source: http://www.gelighting.com

Why Top Engineering Companies Use No Magic, Inc. Products as Their Primary MBSE Selection

 All, Case Studies, Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), Overview  1 Response »
Jul 292014
 

Bombardier_Rail-News No Magic constantly strives to ensure that our users get the best modeling, analysis, and simulation solutions in the market. No Magic, Inc. conducted this research with system engineering (MagicDraw for SysML or Cameo Systems Modeler) clients.

Representatives from some of the largest systems engineering companies around the globe (NASA, Raykiel, Konecranes Plc, Bombardier Transportation, ABB Inc, Siemens AG, Bernafon AG, KB Medical SA, Mechatronic AG, Science and Technology Facilities Council, Sercel, and others) were interviewed to identify why they selected MBSE tools. Why did they choose MagicDraw/Cameo Systems Modeler over the competition?

Find out the survey results

Clients ranked factors that a MBSE tool should satisfy from the most important to the least important and commented their choices. The most important factor received 10 points, the second received 9, etc.  We calculated the percentage of the total score for each factor. A summary of scores is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Result of survey: Key factors that MBSE tools should satisfy

Table 1. Result of survey: Key factors that MBSE tools should satisfy

In addition to the key factors above, other factors were mentioned:  large amount of documentation available, large user community, positive experience with other No Magic, Inc. products, multiplatform support (works on multiple OS), documentation template availability, and data interchange between documents and model.

Key Factors in Details

1. Ease of use

What is behind this factor?

Cameo Systems Modeler provides intuitive controls within a very well designed GUI, which allows users to model without having to spend time learning about the controls. Clients admire how quickly they can learn the GUI and they value the ability to save time and improve productivity. All major commands are available through as few clicks as possible.

This is identified as the first most important factor and competitive advantage.

Tim Weilkiens strongly emphasized the usability of a tool [1]. According to him, today, poor usability is one of the main hurdles of introducing a modeling culture in a company. Easy access to the most common operations is a cornerstone of MagicDraw’s user interface.

Cameo Systems Modeler is based on the award-winning MagicDraw modeling platform. The solution retains all the best diagramming, teamwork, persistence and documentation capabilities while offering more customized capabilities tailored to systems engineering needs.

No Magic also provides the first implementation of the SysML-Lite concept, described in A Practical Guide to SysML, 2nd Edition, by Sanford Friedenthal, Alan Moore, and Rick Steiner [2]:
“SysML-Lite is a simplified version of the language to help people get started modeling with SysML. It includes six of the nine SysML diagrams, and a small subset of the available language features for each diagram kind. SysML-Lite provides a significant modeling capability.”

Hundreds of usability features such as:

How is this achieved?

  • We just listen!
  • Each new release contains enhancements and fixes requested by our users and our internal team
  • It is mature – 10 years in the market means a lot
  • No Magic constantly researches and collaborates with many of the élite systems engineering experts to achieve simplicity and elegancy in solutions. No Magic spent about a year researching and collaborating with systems engineering experts, devising a way to simplify the transition from traditional to a Model-Based Systems Engineering approach which resulted in first implementation of the SysML-Lite concept

2. Latest standards conformance and enforcement

NoMagic’s MagicDraw provides the best support for diagrams of all of the tools I’ve ever used.

OMG SysML RFI Survey [3]

What is behind this factor?

The complete latest SysML 1.4 standard support. We were the first to implement V1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4

Our clients and we, believe we have the most up-to-date and standards-compliant modeling solution in the industry.

  • Cameo Systems Modeler supports the complete latest SysML 1.4 standard. We were the first to implement V1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4
  • Unlike most of the solutions in the industry MagicDraw does not use any tool-specific notations. Instead, Cameo Systems Modeler enforces diagram and model correctness based only onthe standards. Clients can be sure that their models are correct and fully standards complaint, so clients do not waste time correcting improper models
  • The Cameo Simulation Toolkit provides the first in the industry extendable model execution framework based on OMG fUML and W3C SCXML standards
  • The tool suite stores models in standard XMI format, which together with EMF XMI is also used for interchange
  • The Requirements Interchange Format (ReqIF) support enables requirements import from requirements management tools, such as IBM DOORS 9.4 and 9.5, IBM DOORS Next Generation, PTC Integrity, Polarion, and Siemens Teamcenter
  • Standards compliance is the most important factor found by book authors when preparing diagrams for a wide audience – as shown by a most reputable software and system engineering authors’ survey [1]

How is this achieved?

  • No Magic is a top influential member in the Object Management Group (OMG) organization. Our experts are significantly involved in OMG standards development. We are typically standards compliant before the standards are released to the public. This is enabled by MagicDraw, a very versatile platform easily adaptable to changes in the standards
  • No Magic is an official member of the OMG Model Interchange Working Group (MIWG) and UML Diagram Interchange (UMLDI) Group both formed to demonstrate and facilitate interoperability between modeling tools
  • No Magic is an active member of INCOSE – International Council on Systems Engineering

3. Expert recommendations

MagicDraw will be the first choice.

OMG SysML RFI Survey [3]

What is behind this factor?

  • World leading companies (including many from Fortune 500 and Global 500) use and recommend us for their partners
  • The most reputable book authors use our products writing system engineering books [1]
  • Due to high standard conformance and academic program availability, products are used in hundreds of universities training future experts around the world. One example is the French universities case [4]
  • Products are used by INCOSE MBSE Challenge Teams  – pioneers for advance engineering solutions:
Figure 1. E-ELT- the largest optical telescope in the world compare the ESO’s Very Large Telescope and Statue of Liberty

Figure 1. E-ELT- the largest optical telescope in the world compare the ESO’s Very Large Telescope and Statue of Libertyff

  • MBSE Usability Team
  • Our products are used in top engineering projects: E-ELT[5], CubeSat [6] [7], US Navy Submarines [8], etc
  • Top innovative organizations are using our products to move innovations into industry: NASA JPL, ESO, LMCO, Airbus, Kongsberg, BAE Systems, Raytheon, ABB Inc, Siemens AG, Hospira, NSN, BMW, GE, Raykiel, Konecranes Plc, Bombardier Transportation, Bernafon AG, KB Medical SA, Mechatronic AG, Sercel and others
  • According to a comprehensive OMG SysML RFI survey [3] Magicdraw:
    • Is second most post popular SysML tool – Figure 2
    • Provides the best average value of all diagrams – Figure 3
    • Is the most satisfying SysML tool – Figure 4
    Figure 4. What Modeling tools were used on the project?

    Figure 2. MagicDraw is second the most popular modeling tool

    Figure 6. Overall Value Average of all Diagrams

    Figure 3. MagicDraw provides the best average value of all diagrams

    Figure 4. Systems engineers are most satisfied with MagicDraw

    Figure 4. Systems engineers are most satisfied with MagicDraw

How is this achieved?

  • Close collaboration with clients – most products capabilities were requested from our clients
  • Partners program covering knowledge sharing with training, consultancy, and technology partners
  • Stick to the standards, well extendable, usable, well covering all the factors listed in this survey.
  • It’s extendibility is as best as possible as all the standards are implemented by extending the customization mechanism Domain Specific Language (DSL). This enables good products adaption in the organizations.  That is why it is so well-liked and recommended by leading experts
  • Self-promoting:
    • One of the most popular UML / SysML tools in the market
    • Available since 1998
    • Over 500,000 installations in 90+ countries
    • Used by top companies and educational institutions

4. Competent and prompt support

  • All product and technology related technical questions are handled the same day, when possible
  • The same experts, who create, analyze, and test products also provide customer support
  • Instant chat available directly from www.nomagic.com gives immediate assistance, during US operational hours
  • Self-help sources are available:
    • Forum with thousands of posts is constantly monitored by No Magic
    • Modeling blog dedicated for ideas, sharing and expanding modeling discipline
    • Comprehensive documentation.
    • Online videos
  • Need more? Our consulting department with hundreds of hours experience is ready to assist with any model-based solution. We pride ourselves on working with every size company, both large and small, and tailoring our solutions to fit our customers’ needs

How is this achieved?

  • Customer support is a direct link to the company experts developing the same products. Almost all of the development team dedicates up to 15% of time for customer support
  • 3 centers (US, Europe, and Asia) around the world which can ensure almost non-stop 24/5 “follow the sun” support for first level issues and questions
  • We invest a lot in the community by dedicating resources to actively supporting the forum and blog

5. Dedicated collaboration environment

  • Collaboration server dedicated for corporate work on modeling projects
  • All designs are stored in a single place, there are no longer files that are scattered around in the network; changes can be introduced in an orderly manner and without conflicts
  • Collaborative environment enables: baselining, branching, merging, change tracking, configuration management, user permissions

 How is this achieved?

  • Environment capabilities are dedicated for model based projects:
    • Granularity level is single element
    • All capabilities are tuned to easy work with models
  • Active work on new technologies and innovations. Our new scalable data-base repository will change the rules of the game on e-collaboration on enterprise level models (hundreds of thousands of elements, and hundreds of users, scalable, with flexible permissions schema)

6. Extendibility

Extendibility is especially important when adapting tools for a required modeling method. As the report [3] shows (Figure 5) most projects and organizations use company specific approaches which require high flexibility, and extendibility from the tool, but on other hand, also high standard conformance.

Figure 5. Modeling approach, method used in system engineering projects

Figure 5. Modeling approach, method used in system engineering projects

How is this achieved?

DSL. The Domain Specific Language Customization Engine allows adapting the tool to the domain specific profile, or modeling domain. You can adjust and extend the product covering most of your needs without any coding. A lot of capabilities including: model-based metrics, custom diagrams, and smart packages gives you code free customization freedom

  • Object Constraint Language (OCL). OCL expressions can be added to any model element. Executable constraint checks the model for correctness and completeness, displays errors in the model and suggests solutions.
  • Open API
  • Scripting Engine – scripts in BeanShell, JRuby, Jython, Groovy and JavaScript to create custom action for repetitive tasks
  • Report Wizard with the customizable WYSIWYG reports supporting any style of documentation
  • Last but not least, we assist our clients in creating custom solutions including Open API support

This means that the product can be fully adapted to ANY client’s organization needs, and to the needs of multiple internal organizations.

How is this achieved?

We are typically standards compliant even before the standards are released to the public. In order to enable this we required MagicDraw to become a very versatile platform that is easily adaptable to changes in the standards. MagicDraw extendibility is the best as possible as all the standards are implemented by extending it’s customization mechanism DSL.

7. Quality of documentation

  • High quality documentation covers all parts of the product including: manuals, online demos, and help
  • Major capabilities are documented with a few real world use cases from our customer’s experience

 How is this achieved?

  • Dedicated team of technical writers participates in each capability creation from the beginning
  • Product managers, consultants and analysts provide real world use case and review each part of the documentation

8. Competitive price

We leverage between expensive, often stagnant, inflexible, old fashioned solutions and inexpensive, well-known, but in many aspects, fragile products which just scratch the systems engineering surface. We maintain a strong reputation for the product with the best price for value.

About MBSE solution

No Magic’s Model-based Systems Engineering Solution is the most standard compliant application of modeling to support: System Requirements, Analysis and Simulation, Design, Verification and Validation.

Our product speaks the common language – Systems Modeling Language (SysML 1.4) which is understood across a significant proportion of the systems engineering community.

Flagship products:

  • The Cameo Systems Modeler is Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) software enabling single users or an entire engineering team to create, collaborate, and manage systems requirements and designs. It’s the most up-to-date and standards-compliant modeling solution in the industry. The complete SysML 1.4 standard implementation is wrapped into an intuitive user interface for a simplified modeling experience
  • The Cameo Simulation Toolkit provides the first in the industry extendable model execution framework based on OMG fUML and W3C SCXML standards. It extends the UPDM plugin to validate system behavior by executing, animating, and debugging SysML Parametric models in the context of realistic mock-ups of the intended user interface

Flagship products come with multiple extensions and integrations.

Our solution enhances the ability to capture, analyze, share and manage the information associated with the complete specification of a product, resulting in the following benefits: improve communication, increased ability to manage system complexity, improved product quality, enhanced knowledge capture and reuse, and improved ability to teach and learn systems.

Further Steps

We are happy to provide products that are so widely and so well recognized. From the interview and survey we also received a list of very valuable requested improvements. This will help us to continue to deliver the highest standard of solutions in the future.

References

[1] Pavalkis, Saulius. Why Modeling Book Authors Use MagicDraw As Their Primary Selection. Modeling Community Blog, 2014. Available at http://blog.nomagic.com/why-modeling-book-authors-use-magicdraw-as-the-best-product/

[2] Friedenthal, Sanford, Alan Moore, and Rick Steiner. A practical guide to SysML: the systems modeling language. Elsevier, 2011.

[3] Cloutier, Robert and Bone, Mary. Compilation of SysML RFI- Final Report, Systems Modeling Language (SysML) Request for Information OMG Document: syseng/2009-06-01, February 20, 2010. Available at http://www.omgwiki.org/MBSE/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=mbse:omg_rfi_final_report_02_20_2010-1.pdf

[4] Pavalkis, Saulius. MBSE Courses and Book, Prepared and Adopted by French Academic Institutions. Modeling Community Blog, 2014. Available at http://blog.nomagic.com/mbse-courses-and-book-prepared-and-adopted-by-french-academic-institutions/

[5] Pavalkis, Saulius. MBSE in Telescope Modeling: European Extremely Large Telescope – World’s biggest eye on the sky. Modeling Community Blog, 2014. Available at http://blog.nomagic.com/mbse-in-telescope-modeling-european-extremely-large-telescope-worlds-biggest-eye-on-the-sky/

[6] Spangelo, Sara C., et al. Applying model based systems engineering (MBSE) to a standard CubeSat. Aerospace Conference, 2012 IEEE. IEEE, 2012. Available at http://www.omgsysml.org/mbse_cubesat_v1-2012_ieee_aero_confr.pdf

[7] Spangelo, Sara C., et al. Model based systems engineering (MBSE) applied to Radio Aurora Explorer (RAX) CubeSat mission operational scenarios. Aerospace Conference, 2013 IEEE. IEEE, 2013. Available at http://www.agi.com/downloads/resources/white-papers/mbse-cubesat-2013-%20ieee-%20aero-%20conf.pdf

[8] Pavalkis, Saulius. Model Based Management of Configurations of Complex Systems: Common Submarine Combat System. Modeling Community Blog, 2014. Available at http://blog.nomagic.com/model-based-management-of-configurations-of-complex-systems-common-submarine-combat-system/

Image source: ESO, Bombardier

What’s New in MagicDraw 18.0 Long-Term Release

 All, Event Feedback & Slides, News, Overview, Software Architecture, Webinars  No Responses »
Jul 212014
 

No Magic, Inc. is pleased to share this video presenting MagicDraw 18.0 LTR released on June 2, 2014.

The new Long-Term Release not only significantly increases modeling productivity, it also introduces new usage scenarios of our products to help your businesses or your clients’ businesses to operate more efficiently.

The video present highlights of the new version:

Slides:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Find more information

What are the most used MBSE methods, metrics, tools? OMG asked system engineering experts to help develop SysML standard

 All, Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), Overview, White Papers  No Responses »
Jul 152014
 
  • What is the most popular MBSE modeling method?
  • What metrics are actually used and what value do they bring?
  • What Modeling tools are used?
  • What was the primary purpose of the model?

Those and more than 50 additional questions (including open-ended responses) were provided by a sample of respondents from the system engineering community. The study was conducted in response to the OMG SysML Request for Information in an effort to develop the SysML standard.

Added to most questions is an analytical view of data that lends itself to graphs. Some of them are presented here

Figure 1. What modeling approach/method did you use?

Figure 1. What modeling approach/method did you use?

Figure 2. What was the primary purpose of the model?

Figure 2. What was the primary purpose of the model?

Figure 3. What type of system was SysML applied to?

Figure 3. What type of system was SysML applied to?

Figure 4. What Modeling tools were used on the project?

Figure 4. What Modeling tools were used on the project?

Figure 5. How satisfied were you with the primary SysML tool used on this project?

Figure 5. How satisfied were you with the primary SysML tool used on this project?

Figure 6. Overall Value Average of all Diagrams

Figure 6. Overall Value Average of all Diagrams

satisfied tool

Figure 7. How satisfied were you with primary SysML tool used on this project?

The RFI responses were submitted via an on-line survey that was available from the OMG SysML site at http://www.omgsysml.org . The intent of the RFI is to help guide the roadmap for future evolution of SysML, by understanding, what is working well, the issues, proposed solutions, and additional capabilities that are desired of the language. The RFI has two parts, where part I includes 22 questions related directly to the language, and part II includes 38 additional questions related to how SysML is used with model-based systems engineering (MBSE) methods, tools, training, and metrics. Dr Rob Cloutier from Stevens Institute of Technology, and Mary Bone, his research assistant, managed the issuance and analysis of the RFI responses. The results provide significant data that will help to refine SysML, and also provide insights into how MBSE is practiced with SysML.

Preliminary analysis of this data SysML RFI Analysis Results was presented by Dr Rob Cloutier  to the OMG SE DSIG on December 8, 2009 in Long Beach, and again at the INCOSE International Workshop in Phoenix, AZ in February.

The Full Systems Modeling Language (SysML) Request For Information OMG Document:syseng/2009-06-01 report by Dr. Robert Cloutier, Mary Bone Report  is available at

http://www.omgwiki.org/MBSE/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=mbse:omg_rfi_final_report_02_20_2010-1.pdf

Download (PDF, Unknown)

The Survey is 5 years old but we feel it is valuable information to share, as this might be the most comprehensive OMG MBSE survey officially made.

MBSE in Telescope Modeling: European Extremely Large Telescope – World’s biggest eye on the sky

 All, Case Studies, Downloads, Event Feedback & Slides, Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)  No Responses »
Jul 042014
 

300px-The_European_Extremely_Large_TelescopeThe most ambitious project of the European Southern Observatory’s (ESO) is the construction of the European Extremely Large Telescope (E-ELT) which will be by far the world’s largest optical and near-infrared telescope, and will provide images 15 times sharper than those from the Hubble Space Telescope. Such a project poses continuous challenges to systems engineering due to its complexity in terms of requirements, operational modes, long operational lifetime, interfaces, and number of components. Since 2008, the Telescope Control System (TCS) team has adopted a number of Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) practices in order to cope with the various challenges ahead.

This post provides an overview of the activities taken during this time. The E-ELT Control System design used the No Magic, Inc. products MagicDraw + SysML plugin, Cameo Systems Modeler, and Cameo Simulation Toolkit for the MBSE solution.

Project Overview

On 19 June 2014, a groundbreaking ceremony took place to mark the next major milestone towards ESO’s E-ELT. Part of the 3000-metre peak of Cerro Armazones was blasted away as a step towards levelling the summit in preparation for the construction of the largest optical/infrared telescope in the world.

E-ELT blasting from very close-up

E-ELT is due to be completed in 2022, and once ready, it will be able to take direct images of planets orbiting distant stars. The E-ELT will be the largest telescope of its kind to be built anywhere in the world – World’s biggest eye on the sky.

E-ELT will gather 100 000 000 times more light than the human eye, 8 000 000 times more than Galileo’s telescope, and 26 times more than a single VLT Unit Telescope. In fact, E-ELT will gather more light than all of the existing 8–10-metre class telescopes on the planet, combined.

Figure 1. E-ELT compare to the ESO's Very Large Telescope and Statue of Liberty

Figure 1. E-ELT compare to the ESO’s Very Large Telescope and Statue of Liberty

The official trailers for E-ELT:

Details:

  • Project budget: €1,055M
  • Telescope style:  Reflector
  • Main mirror: 40m diameter
  • Height: 80m
  • Footprint: 100m
  • Collecting area: 978 m2

MBSE Adoption

MBSE and SysML were chosen to model the Telescope Control System (TCS) which controls many different opto-mechanical parts and devices partially embedded in the telescope structure:

  • The Control System includes all hardware, software and communication infrastructure required to control the system
  • 10,000 tons of steel and glass
  • 20,000 actuators, 1,000 mirrors
  • 60,000 I/O points, 700Gflops/s, 17Gbyte/s
  • Manages and coordinates system resources (subsystems, sensors, actuators, etc.)
  • Many distributed control loops

The Telescope Control System (TCS) includes all hardware, software and communication infrastructure required to control the telescope (including the dome) down to, but not including, actuators and sensors. Many sub-systems will be contracted and have to be properly integrated. Therefore, TCS includes the definition of interfaces, requirements, standards for the field electronics, software, and hardware of sub-systems.

The MBSE adoption for TCS was influenced by experiences of the challenge team, see the case study below.

Challenge Team

In the framework of INCOSE’s strategic initiative, the Systems Engineering Vision 2020, one of the main areas of focus is model-based systems engineering. In keeping with this emphasis, the European Southern Observatory (ESO) collaborated since 2007 with the German Chapter of INCOSE (GfSE) in the form of the “MBSE Challenge” team SE2.

The team’s task is to demonstrate solutions to challenging problems using MBSE.

Case Study

The Active Phasing Experiment (APE), a European Union Framework Program 6 project, was chosen as the subject of the SE2 Challenge Team. Many technical products in the telescope domain show an increasing integration of mechanics with electronics, information processing, and optics, and can therefore be considered as an opto-mechatronic system.

The SysML models were created by reverse engineering from existing documentation and from interviews with systems engineers.  The introductory presentation, SysML in Telescope Modeling, provides information on the context, goals, and results of the Challenge team.

The case study is the Active Phasing Experiment (APE) technology demonstrator for the future E-ELT, which is a high-tech, interdisciplinary opto-mechatronical system in operation at the Paranal observatory.

The next generation of telescopes needs to collect significantly more light than current telescopes, therefore requiring larger reflecting surfaces that consist of many individual mirror segments. Due to different disturbances (such as vibrations, wind, and gravity), the segments must be actively controlled to provide a continuous mirror surface with a phasing error of only a few nanometers over the main mirror’s diameter of 42 m. The main challenge is to correctly detect the positioning errors of the segments via specific phasing sensors in order to create a continuous mirror surface.

APE was developed to evaluate those sensors, and was installed on one of the 8 m telescopes that constitute part of the Very Large Telescope in Chile (VLT) for sky tests.

Figure 2. APE was installed at telescope in Atacama desert, Chile.

Figure 2. APE was installed at telescope in Atacama desert, Chile.

For the installation at the telescope it had to comply with various mechanical, electrical, optical, and software interfaces. APE consists of about two hundred sensors and actuators such as wheels, translation stages, lenses, detectors, mirrors, light sources, an interferometer, and twelve computing nodes for control. Since APE had to be deployed in the test lab and in an already existing telescope, for each context it was necessary to model variants of function, interfaces, and structure. All of these characteristics made APE well suited to evaluate the potential of SysML in tackling similar issues.

Figure 3. APE was developed to evaluate those sensors, and was installed on one of the 8m Very Large Telescopes (VLT) in Chile for sky tests

Figure 3. APE was developed to evaluate those sensors, and was installed on one of the 8m Very Large Telescopes (VLT) in Chile for sky tests

4934393acb818b54a180b8d19baf1134.media.680x530

Figure 4. To evaluate the sensors capabilities a special metrology system is built.

The complete APE SysML model and other material, including presentations, recommendations, findings, issues are available at: http://mbse.gfse.de/documents/32.html. The Downloads section includes models in MagicDraw´s mdzip format as well as the Open-Source MBSE Plugin for the modelling tool, which helps in querying the model, creating the basic organizational structure automatically, extracting model variants, and supporting model based document generation based on DocBook.

A direct link to the complete model navigable online in any web-browser: http://mbse.gfse.de/extdocs/ape.html

Figure 5. APE SysML model navigable online.

Figure 5. APE SysML model navigable online.

APE is a complex, interdisciplinary real world sample. It is a real system and no simplified coffee machine as is often used as a demonstration project.

Publications, Presentation, and Webinars

Some of the project publications, presentations and webinars are listed below

Download (PDF, Unknown)

More publications, presentations and webinars are available at http://mbse.gfse.de/documents/44.html

Team Recognition

In 2010, INCOSE presented an award to the Telescope Modeling Challenge Team for Achieving the Systems Engineering Vision 2020 for exceptional work and dedication in establishing and managing the Challenge Team in support of the INCOSE mission. This was specifically, for reaching out within and outside INCOSE to advance the state-of-the- practice of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE).

Figure 6. INCOSE award.

Figure 6. INCOSE award.

Official page of The European Extremely Large Telescope

Credit: ESO, http://www.omgwiki.org, http://mbse.gfse.de/

Enabling MBSE by integrating SysML with PLM, CAD/CAE, Databases

 All, Integrations, Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), Overview  2 Responses »
Jun 182014
 

SLIM (Systems LIfecycle Management) is a software environment for integrated model-based systems engineering, founded on SysML (OMG Systems Modeling Language) and PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) toolsets. With this approach, system engineers can develop and manage the high-level architecture of a system/product in SysML and simultaneously connect, communicate, and sync with detailed requirements, parts (bill of materials and CAD), simulation models (MATLAB/Simulink, Mathematica, CAE) and complex data structures that are version managed and configuration controlled in enterprise-strength PLM systems (such as Teamcenter and Windchill) and object-oriented / relational databases (such as MySQL).

SLIM-WheelSLIM enables the creation and management of the Total System Model (TSM) for any complex system, as shown below. The TSM provides a unique model of the system—federation of multiple models—that evolves continuously during the system development process and serves as the digital blueprint of the system through its lifecycle. At any given point in time, the TSM includes the SysML model(s) of the system and domain-specific models, all of which are at specific versions, and the connections between them.

Total-System-Model

How Does SLIM Work?

SLIM enables system engineers to connect to enterprise-strength product lifecycle management (PLM) and database systems, such as Teamcenter, Windchill, and MySQL from their SysML modeling tools, such as MagicDraw, Rhapsody, Artisan Studio, and Enterprise Architect. Once connected, system engineers can generate SysML block/requirement structures from part and requirement structures in the PLM repositories, or vice versa, using simple drag-and-drop operations. System engineers can compare the SysML model with the part and requirement structures in the PLM systems and synchronize them in both directions. With the MySQL connection, system engineers can generate SysML blocks/instances from MySQL tables and rows, or generate MySQL tables/rows from SysML blocks/instances, and synchronize them in both directions.

SLIM is available as a plugin for SysML modeling tools. Once installed, users can launch the SLIM Dashboard from their SysML model(s) and connect, communicate, and sync with models and elements in multiple PLM repositories (Teamcenter, Windchill) and MySQL databases. A single SysML model may be connected with models/elements in multiple repositories, thus enabling a federated and distributed total system model.

image001

SLIM-Dashboard-MacSLIM-Dashboard-Compare-and-SyncSLIM-Dashboard-Connection-Summary

Features

Click here to view the detailed list of features in SLIM 1.0

Find our more at http://www.intercax.com/products/slim/

Intel CoFluent Methodology for SysML

 All, Integrations, Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), White Papers  No Responses »
Jun 112014
 

cofluent-blue-banner This paper presents the Intel® CoFluent™ methodology for SysML and associated tool support. The methodology is based on UML with SysML and MARTE profiles. It allows automatic model transformation from this format to the Intel® CoFluent™ technology DSL.

The methodology can be seen as a set of modeling rules and restrictions applied to SysML/MARTE. These rules enable the simulation of multicore/multiprocessor hardware/software system models for behavioral and performance data prediction, without restricting the expressiveness of SysML and MARTE. The Intel® CoFluent™ methodology for SysML does not add new elements to standard profiles. It does, however, offer an optional profile to represent several features related to Intel® CoFluent™ DSL and necessary for efficient embedded system modeling and simulation.

An “Audio Video Player” example model is used to illustrate the design flow. This model is a high-level description of an audio-video decoder running on a generic platform. The generic platform consists of a processor and hardware accelerator.

Introduction

SysML is a UML profile that allows the creation of standard descriptions of a system. However, this profile is too generic to address embedded and real-time system design. The MARTE UML profile attempts to fill this gap by providing elements from both embedded software and hardware engineering. Unfortunately, it remains mainly descriptive in nature, since no commercial tools are available to simulate the models and extract performance data.

Intel® CoFluent™ technology offers methodology for SysML to provide comprehensive framework and guidelines for joint use of SysML and MARTE. The methodology offers simulation of multicore/multiprocessor hardware/software embedded system and chip models, enabling designers to observe the system behavior and analyze performance properties. The methodology delivers modeling rules and method with tool support.

Intel® CoFluent™ technology’s tool support includes:

  • Intel® CoFluent™ technology UML profile extending UML 2.4, SysML 1.3 and MARTE 1.0 profiles
  • Integration with leading UML modeling environments
  • Link to Intel® CoFluent™ technology’s Intel® CoFluent™ Studio SystemC 2.3-based simulation environment for model execution and extraction of performance figures

The link to Intel® CoFluent™ Studio is achieved by model transformation from SysML to Ecore-based internal model description. The methodology for SysML complies with Intel® CoFluent™ Studio’s embedded system architecting flow and the MARTE profile’s intent that separates the application or functional view from the execution platform view. The execution platform view is often called the hardware resource view.

Hardware/software partitioning is described in a mapping or allocation view, and the resulting allocated view represents the actual embedded software threads executing on the various cores and operating systems that constitute the hardware and firmware. The resulting allocated view is a “virtual system”, since it encompasses the full hardware/software system.

Existing virtual platform and virtual prototype environments require the assembly of detailed intellectual property block models. Intel® CoFluent™ technology’s virtual system modeling and simulation technology overcomes many of the limitations of virtual platforms since it can be executed before detailed hardware intellectual property block models and embedded software are available. Thus, it removes the inherent limitations due to the availability of the models or their important development time and associated cost. The Intel® CoFluent™ technology also goes beyond traditional UML simulation that does not take into consideration architectural and non-functional performance dimensions such as thread priorities and scheduling, time constraints, bus transactions, memory accesses, power consumption, memory footprint, cost, etc. Virtual systems provide fast and accurate evaluation of various use cases and design scenarios by executing SysML specifications and predicting the behavior, performance and power consumption. Accurate prediction is critical for multicore and low-power designs.

Intel® CoFluent™ Studio with SysML support enables system designers to store and exchange design information internally and between third parties in a standard format. It allows the delivery of executable specifications and SystemC test cases for further system validation with SystemC-based virtual platform environments.

Prerequisite: The reader is assumed to have a basic knowledge of UML, SysML and MARTE technologies in order to fully understand this white paper.

UML Modelers and Intel® CoFluent™ Studio Integration

The Intel® CoFluent™ Application profile and associated Intel® CoFluent™ technology plugin are currently available for No Magic’s MagicDraw modeling tool.

The SysML/MARTE application model can be captured in MagicDraw and then imported from Intel® CoFluent™ Studio. MagicDraw can also be directly integrated into Intel® CoFluent™ Studio as an Eclipse* plugin, with one-click integration for the user, in order to work within a single modeling environment.

Methodology for SysML

Figure: Intel® CoFluent™ Studio with integrated MagicDraw

MagicDraw customization has been developed to ease the modeling guidelines application and the Intel® CoFluent™ profile usage. A MagicDraw validation module for Intel® CoFluent™ technology is available to ensure that the SysML/MARTE model is compliant to the methodology and can be transformed into an Intel® CoFluent™ model. All these elements are part of the Intel® CoFluent™ plugin for MagicDraw.

Full article:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

An Intel® CoFluent™ Design White Paper By Thomas Robert and Vincent Perrier is published at http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/white-papers/cofluent-methodology-for-sysml-white-paper.pdf

Implementing a Semantically Rich Business Vocabulary in a Modeling Tool

 All, Business Architecture, Design & Innovations, Software Architecture  No Responses »
Jun 102014
 

SBVRThe demand for support of business vocabularies in model-driven development becomes more and more evident. Yet this is being left out of focus by the majority of modeling tools vendors. Today, there are very few modeling tools which offer the functionality to manage business vocabularies and use them as an integral part of the whole system development project; none of the analyzed tools use any widely accepted standard for describing such vocabularies. In this post, the basic aspects of the implementation technology of semantically rich business vocabularies in modeling tool environments are presented. The solution is based on a novel OMG standard “Semantics for Business Vocabularies and Business Rules (SBVR)” and is implemented by making use of the extension mechanism of Unified Modeling Language (UML) and reusable functional components of the modeling tool, MagicDraw.

Introduction

In general, a business vocabulary (BV) may be defined as a set of “specialized terms and definitions of concepts that a given organization or community uses in their talking and writing in the course of doing business” [1]. Being a part of business model, a BV greatly contributes to the intra- and inter-organizational communication as well as various other activities of business process management (BPM). Moreover, business models become an integral part of the systems development life cycle. Current results of our open-ended survey [2] on the applicability of BV show that over 80 percent of respondents use some kind of BV in their projects as well.

Despite the actual demand for support of BV there are very few modeling tools which offer this functionality to manage and use vocabularies as an integral part of the whole development project and beyond. Moreover, even these few modeling tools do not support any widely accepted standard for describing vocabularies, which is an essential shortcoming for any kind of model, especially in model-driven systems development. We believe this situation is caused by objective circumstances. While considering the implementation of a standard-based BV support in a modeling tool, one should take into account the following:

  • Over the years the majority of modeling tools have evolved to support de facto the most popular modeling standard, Unified Modeling Language (UML). An optimal way of introducing new modeling standard to a modeling tool is by extending its supported UML metamodel and customizing the existing modeling constructs to meet the requirements of the newly introduced standard. To achieve this, a modeling tool should support UML profiling and domain specific language (DSL) development, which are by far not the most common and well-developed features of a statistic modeling tool.
  • OMG’s standard Semantics of Business Vocabularies and Business Rules (SBVR) [1] is probably the first actively and constantly supported initiative to formalize and standardize the specification of BV suitable for wide-range practical applications. Nevertheless, as of yet, OMG did not provide a UML profile for SBVR (like it did with Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) in 2013), nor did it specify how to integrate SBVR models with other models describing business and systems.

In this post, basic aspects of the implementation technology of semantically rich SBVR Business Vocabulary (SBVR BV) in a modeling tool environment are presented. The post is structured in three sections: first, the results of analysis on current support of BV in modeling tools are discussed; next, basic aspects of the proposed implementation technology are introduced by presenting the UML profile for SBVR BV and DSL to support the model-driven specification of core SBVR concepts, and the adoption of the existing glossary capability of the modeling tool MagicDraw; the last section concludes with the results.

Current Status of Business Vocabulary Support in Modeling Tools

The analysis of current status of BV support in modeling tools was carried out in two stages:

  • Ten most popular modeling tools were selected by combining the results from [3] and [4]. Source [4] were used to identify the most popular modeling tools. These tools were put for our review looking for BV support. Tools supporting the management of BV were selected for the second stage.
  • The selected modeling tools were assessed using a more in-depth comparative analysis against a set of primary and secondary features related to the management of BV in a modeling tool. The best evaluated modeling tool was selected as the SBVR BV implementation environment.

Results of the first stage of analysis revealed that BV support in modeling tools is still immature – most of the tools did not have such thing as BV at all, not to mention the management capabilities. Three modeling tools: Enterprise Architect [5], Visual Paradigm [6] and MagicDraw [7] were selected for the second stage of analysis (Table I) as they had support for BV management, although none of them supported SBVR standard.

TABLE (I).  Comparison of the selected CASE tools (against primary features related to BV management)

Feature of a CASE tool *

Enterprise Architect

Visual Paradigm

MagicDraw
Support of model-based vocabulary

–

+

+
UML profiling

++

++

++
Domain specific customization (DSL)

++

+

++
Vocabulary visualization with diagrams

–

+

+
Support of more than one vocabulary in a project

–

+

++
Reuse of vocabularies in new projects

+

+

+
Support of multilingualism in vocabularies

–

–

++
Automatic recognition of a specified term in text

+

+

+
Autocomplete option when typing text

+

–

+

* The following evaluation system was used: “–” not supported, “+” supported, “++” well-supported.

As a result, MagicDraw was selected as the most appropriate implementation platform. In addition to a good coverage of the primary features, MagicDraw provides useful secondary features to encourage the usability of SBVR BV in the CASE tool, such as, creation of new BV entries from the existing textual content in any model (e.g. UML, BPMN) of the project, highly customizable reporting, advanced search capabilities, comprehensive user guides.

Basic aspects of Implementing Semantically Rich Business Vocabulary in MagicDraw

UML Profile and DSL for SBVR Business Vocabulary

The value of UML profiling is well-known and widely discussed ever since the introduction of this extension mechanism by OMG to the UML standard. Currently, OMG has officially introduced fifteen UML profiles for various standards; modeling tools vendors also develop their own UML profiles to support a greater variety of OMG standards, e.g. MagicDraw supports UML profiles for the development of SysML, SoaML, UPDM and other models. Nevertheless, neither OMG, nor any modeling tool vendor, has yet introduced a UML profile for SBVR.

In Figure 1, we present a UML profile for SBVR BV developed by our research group. The profile was developed in two basic steps: 1) the official EMOF metamodel of SBVR was imported into the modeling tool MagicDraw; 2) EMOF metamodel concepts were transformed into corresponding UML stereotypes, thus extending MagicDraw’s native UML metamodel. The extensions were made with regard to general recommendations for UML profile presented in SBVR standard (Annex C in [1]).

It should be mentioned that the proposed UML profile for SBVR BV can be successfully implemented in other modeling tools supporting UML extension mechanism as well. However, the profile alone is not enough to start using SBVR BV in a modeling tool. Another step in the SBVR BV implementation process is the development of specific DSL for the profile, which is a tool-specific task.

Figure 1. UML profile for SBVR Business Vocabulary (core concepts)

Figure 1. UML profile for SBVR Business Vocabulary (core concepts)

In a modeling tool’s environment, the UML profile itself does not specify any usability features for the newly introduced modeling language. In order to actually start modeling, one must tailor a modeling tool accordingly. State of the art modeling tools provide a capability of DSL customization [8], which allows one to customize the modeling environment in a model-driven way to meet specific requirements of a specific modeling language.

Figure 2. Customized MagicDraw modeling environment for the development of SBVR business vocabularies

Figure 2. Customized MagicDraw modeling environment for the development of SBVR business vocabularies

In our solution, the DSL was created to meet certain requirements for model-driven specification of SBVR BV (Figure 2). Distinctive features of this solution are:

  • In SBVR, each BV concept may additionally be specified by a set of predefined properties (such as description, dictionary basis, or more general concept, necessity/possibility etc.) – this allows one to store as much relevant data about each concept as needed (Tag 1 in Figure 2).
  • Business Vocabulary Diagram (a.k.a. Fact Diagram) is introduced (Tag 2 in Figure 2). One BV model may have more than one BV diagram, each of the diagrams representing certain aspect of the BV model. Diagramming is performed using a set of customized notation elements (Tag 3 in Figure 2).
  • SBVR BV is stored in a tree-like structure just like any other model in the project (Tag 4 in Figure 2). Additionally, custom filters for basic SBVR concept types (i.e. general concepts, individual concepts, roles and verb concepts) were created to enhance the usability of the model browser. Each time a new BV concept is created, it is automatically filtered into corresponding model view package.

Adopting the Modeling Tool’s Native Glossary and Reporting Capabilities

In addition to UML profile for SBVR BV and DSL customization, we adopted the existing MagicDraw’s Glossary capability. For each developed BV model one may now create one or more glossaries simply by dragging and dropping selected BV concepts into glossary table (Figure 3). Descriptions of glossary entries are inherited from BV concept’s definition, which is one of the default properties of a BV concept.

add

Figure 3. Integrating SBVR Business Vocabulary with MagicDraw’s native glossary

Having a glossary created for a BV model gives the following usability and model integration advantages:

  • Whenever a concept is used in any other model (as a model element or simply in a plain text) of the project, it is automatically underlined, thus showing that this is a concept specified in BV.
  • The concept description is shown whenever the mouse pointer moves over the concept representation.
  • Whenever typing a text, BV concepts are suggested via auto-completion.

One of the distinctive features of SBVR is that this standard supports more than one representation of BV concepts. A business vocabulary can be represented graphically, i.e. via BV diagrams, which we have already presented, or in textual form, e.g. in Structured English (as well as any other language of one’s choice). To complete our solution, we used MagicDraw’s Reporting capability to generate a textual specification for a BV model. Such specification can be opened, interpreted syntactically and managed by our earlier developed SBVR editor – VeTIS tool [9].

Conclusions

This research presents basic aspects of arguably the first modeling tool-supported solution for the model-driven specification of semantically rich SBVR business vocabularies. Model-based SBVR business vocabularies become an integral part of any model-driven development project, whather it is BPMN-based business process modeling or UML-based information system design. In adition, business vocabularies may be interpreted not only as an integral but also as an integrating part of a system.

At the core of the presented solution is the UML profile for SBVR, which can be adopted by any UML-compliant modeling tool and thus popularizing the use of standard-based business vocabularies in model-driven development.

References

[1]     Object Management Group. Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Business Rules (SBVR) v.1.2.  See: www.omg.org/docs/formal/08-01- 02.pdf (2013).
[2]     T. Skersys. A Survey: Do you need business vocabularies in your projects? See: www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_need_ business_vocabularies_in_your_projects (2014).
[3]     Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. UML CASE tools comparison. See: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unified_ Modeling_Language_tools (2014).
[4]     Google, Inc. Google trends. Available at: www.google.com/trends (2014).
[5]     Sparx Systems. Enterprise Architect – UML Modeling and Lifecycle Tool Suite. See: www.sparxsystems.com.au (2014).
[6]     Visual Paradigm International. Visual Paradigm for UML – Software design tools for agile software development. See: www.visual-paradigm.com/product/vpuml (2014).
[7]     No Magic, Inc. MagicDraw – Architecture Made Simple. See: www.nomagic.com/products/magicdraw.html (2014).
[8]     No Magic, Inc. UML Profiling and DSL. See: www.nomagic.com/files/manuals/MagicDraw%20UMLProfiling&DSL%20 User Guide.pdf (2011).
[9]     L. Nemuraite, T. Skersys, A. Sukys, E. Sinkevičius, L. Ablonskis. VETIS tool for editing and transforming SBVR business vocabularies and business rules into UML&OCL models. 16th International Conference on Information and Software Technologies (IT 2010). pp. 377-384 (2010).

This is the part of the article which will be presented by Skersys, T., Pavalkis S., Nemuraite, L. at 4th Symposium on Computer Languages, Implementations and Tools (SCLIT2014) at 12th International Conference of Numerical Analysis and Applied Mathematics (ICNAAM 2014).

Business Architecture: The Foundation for Business Process Management and Business Analysis

 All, Business Architecture, Event Feedback & Slides  1 Response »
May 282014
 

There is a clear convergence coming among a variety of well-established business and IT disciplines. Some Enterprise Architects have realized that IT centric EA is doomed without appropriate business direction driving the vision. Business Process Management professionals have been consistently moving the BPM practice to enterprise wide business process architectures for the sustainable management and governance of end to end process assets and total alignment of process results and measures to external stakeholder outcomes. Many Business Analysts are taking a much wider and strategic view of the businesses they must analyze if they are to be successful in defining business, business system and information systems requirements. All of these are all marching towards the same space but are coming from a different starting point, however. How can we get these apparently disparate professions to share the same perspective and knowledge base?

This session introduce a proven approach to have everyone working towards a common foundation. Building a true multidimensional Business Architecture from the point of view of the business and not solely from the perspective of an individual professional group is what is needed for all groups to start together. No one group of professionals can do it alone and none of them should own it outright. Business Architecture is for the whole business and its stewardship must reside there. This session outline how we can build a shareable, robust and sustainable Business Architecture that everyone can use.

Short agenda of session:

  • A little history of EA, BPM and BA practices (where we are coming from)
  • An integrated view of the component parts as seen by the business (where we are going to)
  • A method that glues it all together to achieve strategic outcomes (A Business Architecture method)
  • Some illustrations of its use in private sector and government (case studies)
  • What does this mean for BPM and BA professionals (your future)

Download the material presented during BPM in Practice 2013 conference.

About Author

Roger is a co-founder of BPTrends RogerAssociates; the services firm of the world-leading BPTrends.com knowledge portal. He started the pioneering Process Renewal Group (PRG) in 1993. He is regarded globally as a thought leader and dynamic practitioner who can bring reason, clarity, and practicality to ways of managing complex BPM challenges. Roger’s insights can be found in his acclaimed book: Business Process Management: Profiting from Process and other publications including his column in BPTrends.com.

To find out more,  share practical experience gained from applying various BPM methodologies and approaches in organizations from a wide variety of domains meet us at the BPM in Practice 2014. The conference is one of the ways we share our passion for business process architecture and analysis.

The Value of SysML Modelling During System Operations: A Case Study

 All, Case Studies, Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)  No Responses »
May 272014
 

Research conducted by Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA JPL) and California Institute of Technology, demonstrates the use of SysML in modelling the Ground Data System (GDS) for the Dawn spacecraft. The case study briefly discusses the advantages of a SysML model over an MS Excel® spreadsheet and also mentions how a similar GDS model could be used for other missions as well by just making a few changes to the original model, which would enable reusability and reduce design time.

System models are often touted as engineering tools that promote better understanding of systems, but these models are typically created during system design. The Ground Data System (GDS) team for the Dawn spacecraft took on a case study to see if benefits could be achieved by starting a model of a system already in operations. This paper focuses on the four steps the team undertook in modeling the Dawn GDS: defining a model structure, populating model elements, verifying that the model represented reality, and using the model to answer system-level questions and simplify day-to-day tasks. Throughout this paper the team outlines their thought processes and the system insights the model provided.

These advantages of modeling over traditional approaches were identified:

  • The ability to have different views. When describing any system as complex as a spacecraft it is necessary to create multiple views for different audiences and purposes.
  • The use of a standardized modeling language like UML or SysML imposes a standard convention so that no matter which diagram the reader is looking at, the meaning of each symbol is unambiguous.
  • Maintaining consistency across all the views. The advantage of a modeling tool over these presentation or drawing tools is the model itself. If element names or relationships change over time, those changes are automatically propagated to all system views.
  • The modeling tool understands basic information about the system being described and can be the first line of defense against inconsistency. For example the modeling tool can perform type-checks between interfaces, so if a modeler attempts to draw a connection between two incompatible ports, like 1553 and Ethernet, the tool will flag it.
  • A model enforces consistency, but users are not forced to choose between the traditional spreadsheet and a model. Once information is in the model, generating an editable spreadsheet view from that single source of truth is trivial.
  • Dawn’s prime mission is eight years long, so there is risk of the GDS system documentation becoming out-of-date. The transition of personnel over the course of the mission makes it even more important to maintain a single accurate representation of the system. Capturing this information in the model mitigates this risk.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Presentation source http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/43988/1/13-0979_A1b.pdf

Article is published at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6496850

Image credit NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA/McREL

Why Modeling Book Authors Use MagicDraw As Their Primary Selection

 All, Case Studies, Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), Overview, Software Architecture  No Responses »
May 132014
 

Interview and Survey of the Most Reputable Book Authors.

bookMagicDraw is a business process, architecture, software and systems modeling tool. It is one of the most popular UML and SysML tools in the market. It has been available since 1998 and has over 500,000 installations in 10,000 companies in 90 countries.

More and more books, papers and even OMG specifications are prepared using MagicDraw, its plugins and other No Magic Inc. modeling products. Standard bodies such as ISO, OMG, ACORD, SWIFT, and others have adopted MagicDraw as the de facto standard for producing their work products. The most popular modeling books such as UML Bible by Tom Pender, and A Practical Guide to SysML: The Systems Modeling Language by Sanford Friedenthal are prepared using MagicDraw. The list of authors using MagicDraw includes: Jim Arlow, Tom Pender, Pascal Roques, Tim Weilkiens, and others.

Table 1 Result of survey: key factors that modeling tools should satisfy

Table 1 Result of survey: key factors that modeling tools should satisfy

We work closely with people to understand their needs, including authors. We interviewed some of the most reputable book authors to identify why and how they use modeling tools.

1tThey ranked the factors that modeling tools should satisfy from most important to least important and commented their choices. The first most important factor received 10 points, the second received 9 and so on.  We combined factor scores and feedback from surveys. A summary of the factor scores is shown in Table 1.

The Truth is in the Details. So let’s see what reputable authors tell us why MagicDraw is beneficial for their work and why they recommend the product for their readers.

Why this group of users is important?

In addition to writing books, most of the authors do hundreds of consulting and training sessions, and contribute to standards. These are advanced, well-informed, and highly demanding users. They seek perfection in many areas. But most important is that the things important to them are valuable for everyone, and they had time to search, find and change for the best.

Key Factors in Details

1. Standard Conformance and Enforcement

MagicDraw supports the latest UML (one of the first to implement UML 2.0), SysML (first to implement V1.0, 1.1, and latest 1.2), BPMN, UPDM metamodels, XMI and EMF XMI standards for data storage and interchange. Incorrect model simply cannot be created.

Standards compliance is the single the most important factor authors find when preparing diagrams for a wide audience. Unlike most of the solutions in the industry d2toes not use any tool-specific notations. Instead, MagicDraw enforces diagram and model correctness according to the standards only. Authors can be sure that their models are correct and fully standards complain so authors do not waste time correcting improper models.

How this is achieved?

No Magic is a top influential member in the Object Management Group (OMG) organization. Our experts are significantly involved in OMG standards development. We are typically standards compliant even before the standards are released to the public. This is enabled by MagicDraw, a very versatile platform that is easily adaptable to changes in the standards.

2. Visually Pleasing Diagrams

Visual

3t

Visually pleasing diagrams with 3D SHADOW, GRADIENT COLOR, and ROUNDED CORNERS OF PATHS for better-looking model presentations is the second most important requirement for authors. Additionally, an arc style line jump, for diagrams that have many intersecting links, makes them easier to understand.

On the other hand black and white notation is a must for scientific papers. According to Tim Weilkiens, it is important to have diagrams without any proprietary adornments with independent styles, e.g. no color shading etc.

 

 

3. High Usability

runMagicDraw provides intuitive controls within a very well designed GUI, that allows users to model without having to spend time learning about the controls. Authors admire how quickly they can learn the MagicDraw GUI and they value the ability to save time and improve productivity.4t

This is identified as the third most important factor. Tim Weilkiens strongly emphasized the usability of a tool. According to him, today poor usability is one of the main hurdles of introducing a modeling culture in a company.

Easy access to the most common operations is a cornerstone of MagicDraw’s user interface.

With hundreds of usability features such as:

You’ll find MagicDraw indispensable for helping to reach high-velocity in diagram creation and editing, as all major commands are available through a single click.

How is this achieved?

  1. We just listen!
  2. Each new release contains enhancements and fixes requested by our users and our internal team.
  3. MagicDraw is mature – 10 years in the market means a lot.

5t

4. High Definition and Scalability of Image Export

For publishing it is very important to produce high quality scalable graphics.TIFF2

  • Export to TIFF format. Widely supported by image-manipulation and publishing software, TIFF files can be edited and resaved without suffering a compression loss.
  • Flexible image size. Higher resolution images can be produced without losing the quality, suitable for publishing.
  • Custom DPI. Definable exported picture quality (resolution) gives raster images processing applications information to scale the image to appropriate size while being printed or displayed.
  • Scalable SVG and EMF images export allows adjusting the size of already exported images without losing quality.

5. Wide Range of Supported Domains

6tIt is very important for the tool to support a variety of extensions that customize the product for a wide range of activities, that are described by the authors. Two examples of these are:
  • State machine and activity simulation supported by our first-in-the-industry extendable model execution framework based on OMG fUML and W3C SCXML standards
  • MDA and custom modeling domain support, enabled by the flexible model driven MagicDraw Domain Specific Language (DSL).

Unlike in the open source market, our product compatibility is outstanding, with technology, language and domain extensions.

7t

6. Competitive Price

The price is not always a major concern for the book authors. We leverage between expensive, often stagnant, non-flexible, old fashioned solutions and inexpensive, well known but in many aspects, fragile products. We maintain a reputation for the product with the best price for value.

Further Steps

We are happy to provide products so widely and so well recognized. From the interview and survey we also received a list of very valuable requested improvements. This will help us to continue to deliver the highest standard of solutions in the future.

About Authors

Pascal Roques

PRoq - photoThe most famous French UML books (50,000 copies sold), and first SysML book author in France. Longtime trainer and consultant. System engineer and modeling expert.

Pascal books

Jim Arlow

JimIndependent author, trainer, consultant and researcher. His book – “UML 2 and the Unified Process” is one of the most popular and used as a standard textbook in hundreds of Universities worldwide.

Jim books

Tom Pender

TomAuthor of one of the most popular UML books. Also Tom is author of several courses on UML, SysML, and UPDM. He has taught throughout the United States and in 12 other countries and has over 20 years of systems development experience in various industries.

Tom books

Tim Weilkiens

tw

CEO of the German consulting company oose GmbH, is a member of OMG working groups about SysML and UML and has written sections of the SysML specification. He is involved in the INCOSE MBSE activities and co-founder of the MBSE Challenge Team SE^2 Telescope Modeling. Model based system engineering blog and one of the most popular SysML books author: www.model-based-systems-engineering.com.

Tim books

Download article in PDF

 Older Entries  Newer Entries