Banner
Home      Log In      Contacts      FAQs      INSTICC Portal
 

Keynote Lectures

Future Directions for MBSE with SysML v2
Sanford Friedenthal, SAF Consulting, LLC, United States

Responsible Language Design
Vadim Zaytsev, Formal Methods & Tools, University of Twente, Netherlands

On Views, Diagrams, Programs, Animations, and Other Models
Henderik A. Proper, Business Informatics Group, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria, Austria

 

Future Directions for MBSE with SysML v2

Sanford Friedenthal
SAF Consulting, LLC
United States
 

Brief Bio
Sanford Friedenthal is an industry leader and independent consultant in model-based systems engineering (MBSE). He was formerly a Technical Fellow at Lockheed Martin, where he led the effort to enable Model- Based Systems Development (MBSD) and other advanced practices across the company. His experience includes the application of systems engineering throughout the system lifecycle from conceptual design, through development and production on a broad range of systems in aerospace and defense. Sanford Friedenthal has been a leader of the industry standards effort through the Object Management Group (OMG) and INCOSE to develop the Systems Modeling Language (OMG SysML ®) that was adopted by the OMG in 2006. He is now co-leading the effort to develop the next generation of SysML (v2). He also led the effort to develop the Systems Engineering Vision 2035 for INCOSE.


Abstract
Model-based systems engineering (MBSE) has evolved over the last several years in response to the need to deal with growing system complexity and increased enterprise agility. MBSE is an approach to systems engineering where information about the system is captured in a system model. This approach can provide a more complete, consistent, and traceable system design than a more traditional document-based approach where information about the system is captured in a variety of documents, informal diagrams, and spreadsheets.
SysML v1 was adopted in 2006 and has been a key enabler of MBSE. Since that time, much has been learned about applying MBSE with SysML. The next generation of SysML (v2) is being developed by the SysML v2 Submission Team (SST) to provide capabilities that address the limitations of SysML v1 and enable the evolving practice of MBSE. This presentation summarizes the future directions for MBSE and how SysML v2 can support these needs.



 

 

Responsible Language Design

Vadim Zaytsev
Formal Methods & Tools, University of Twente
Netherlands
 

Brief Bio
Better known as @grammarware, Dr. Vadim Zaytsev is an Associate Professor of software evolution at the University of Twente, and a Programme Director for its Technical Computer Science programmes (BSc and MSc). In the past, he has worked several years as a Chief Science Officer and analyst/developer of Raincode, the largest independent compiler services company in the world, directly contributing to writing modern production-strength compilers for obsolete and obsolescent languages, as well as providing related services in digital transformation, software migration and portfolio analysis. He holds a PhD degree from the VU Free University of Amsterdam, two cum laude MSc degrees in telematics and mathematics, and one BSc degree. He is the chair of the Steering Committee of IEEE SCAM, the editor-in-chief of Software Language Engineering Body of Knowledge, a member of the IFIP working group 2.11 on Program Generation, he has been a PC member or PC chair of various conferences, organised a number of hands-on events such as hackathons, coding dojos, tool tracks and artefact evaluations, and is an active advocate for open science, open source, open data and open access. Vadim Zaytsev has been working in software (language) analysis, design, implementation, visualisation and restructuring since 2004; moving to that after being a code-level hacker and a railway engineer. His research interests gravitate towards elicitation of structure in software and improving it by taking advantage of whatever structure is present.


Abstract
Software language design has become commoditised: there are many techniques, tools and workbenches which enable anyone to analyse a new domain and distil it into a language. Domain jargon transforms into concrete syntax, domain concepts form an abstract syntax, familiar visualisations become visual layout, domain knowledge morphs into semantic rules of correctness, conformance and execution behaviour. The burden of writing parsers manually or even having to optimise the desired syntax for the sake of language processor's performance, are seen as legacy of the past, and start to look irrelevant or insignificant nowadays. However, one burden of a language designer that remains, is the responsibility for the consequences of design choices. In the field of design, anything is possible, but everything has consequences. In the field of language design, we shape the ways future language users will think, and should take responsibility for that.
In this talk, we will revisit some of the existing languages for programming and modelling in different domains, to gain insight into the rationales behind some of their design decisions, as well as the consequences of those decisions which we need to deal with today. Learning from the past will prepare us for the future.



 

 

On Views, Diagrams, Programs, Animations, and Other Models

Henderik A. Proper
Business Informatics Group, TU Wien, Vienna, Austria
Austria
 

Brief Bio
Prof. Dr. Henderik A. Proper, Erik for friends, is Full Professor in Enterprise and Process Engineering in the Business Informatics Group at the TU Wien. Erik has a mixed background, covering a variety of roles in both academia and industry. His core research drive is the development of theories that work. In other words, Erik focuses on research that leads to results that have both theoretical rigour and practical relevance. His general research interest concerns the foundations and applications of domain modelling; in particular in the context of enterprises. Over the past 20 years, he has applied this research drive and general research interest towards the further development of the field of enterprise design management, and enterprise modelling in particular. He is also co-initiator of the ArchiMate research project, which also resulted in the ArchiMate standard for enterprise architecture modelling. Erik is vice-chair of the IFIP 8.1 working group, while also being the representative for the Netherlands in IFIP's TC8 technical committee. He is also the Stellvertretender Sprecher (vice chair) of the EMISA working group of the German Computer Science Society (Gesellschaft für Informatik).


Abstract
In the context of model-driven systems engineering, we come across notions, such as views, aspects, perspectives, diagrams, etc. Next to that, the question if a programme is a model, or if an animation is a model, also regularly surfaces. The aim of this keynote is to take a fundamental look at these notions, while essentially positioning these notions as being specific kinds of models, albeit for fundamentally different purposes.
We start by zooming in on the notions of model and modeling language. In doing so, we will also visit the importance of a model’s purpose and its potential Return on Modeling Effort (RoME) in particular, as well as the role of the conceptualisation — in the mind of the modeler(s) — of the domain of interest that is (to be) captured by the model. This will then also take us to the notion of conceptual model, which is a class of models that has grown to play an important role in the field of information systems engineering. Identifying conceptual models as a distinct class of models, does automatically suggests there to be a class of models that are not conceptual. These “non-conceptual” models have an important role to play as well in the sense that by allowing for “conceptual compromises”, these models may gain other experiential and/or computational benefits (RoME), such as being executable, animatable, tangible, etc. .
Based on this discussion, we then position notions such as views (based on different perspectives or aspects), diagrams, programs, and animations, as essentially being specific kinds of models, covering different purposes, different audiences, while also spanning between conceptual and non-conceptual models.



footer