SysML 2 is GO!

A month back, on November 12, I attended the Future Directions for SysML v2 webinar, which presented the approach taken to define the process of the next version of SysML. This was very informative and, at the time, I thought the approach was well thought and the desired improvements were exciting.

And now, I read Tim Weilkiens’ “Next Generation SysML – All-Clear For Takeoff” entry in the MBSE4U blog indicating that the OMG has voted for the SysML v2 RFP!

From what I saw in the webinar, this is good news. But this kind of endeavour is not something that can be done quickly – and neither should it! But in 2-5 years, we’ll have a new, better, and enhanced way of modeling systems!

PolarSys and the INCOSE Symposium 2015

Readers of this blog will be aware that I was present at the INCOSE Symposium 2015, held in Bellevue (Seattle), WA.

I would like to point out that there is now an entry on PolarSys blog about the “Growing interest in PolarSys at the INCOSE Symposium

I must say it was a great experience and I truly enjoyed talking Papyrus (both SysML and “Real Time”) with the visitors at the PolarSys booth. It was also great to meet former colleagues.

One of the goals for INCOSE is to promote model-based systems engineering, and I was impressed by the level of interest and the quality of questions from the visitors. This indicates that the INCOSE’s goal is certainly taken to heart! I have been a member of INCOSE for many year, but I look forward to getting more involved (I joined a couple of working groups while at the symposium). There is an INCOSE Canada conference in Ottawa coming up – I’ll be there (and you can register here)!

(And for those who are wondering, I’m fourth from the left in the booth staff picture…)


Jordi Cabot has an interesting Blog on Modeling Languages. In it (an on LinkedIn) there was a discussion recently on the difference or similitudes between MDA, MDD, and MDE. It’s interesting that Wikipedia treats the last two as the same thing – I like Jordi’s description better.

However, as I read Jordi’s blog posting, I found that his explanation certainly makes sense and is probably correct nowadays, in a more modern sense of the terms.

However, “MDD” has been used for quite a long time to describe model-based (as opposed to model-driven) development. That use of the term would not fit within the definitions presented by OMG as part of MDA (e.g., the CIM/PIM/PSM levels of abstractions and transformations). I suspect that this approach may also still be in use today – although probably not the best way of working with models. This may especially be true of some of the model uses seen in “agile” approaches.

So perhaps there is a need, in the diagram shown on that blog, to also have a model-based development (MBD?) circle that would intersect with MDD, but not the others?

All this also can not be discussed without mentioning the standards, processes, and methods (and the effect of tools on these) surrounding these approaches. Models need to have a standard representation to be useful – and the UML (and SysML) is certainly one that is common these days. However, other notations such as BPMN, ERD, etc., should not be discounted as they represent interesting domain specific modeling languages – and not all can be easily expressed using UML . Tools are too often viewed as a panacea to what ails software development – when they can be a hindrance when one does not understand the standards, processes, and methods they support.