Clarification of typing a binding connector

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 CHAPTER 4 RELATIONAL ALGEBRA AND CALCULUS. 2 Introduction - We discuss here two mathematical formalisms which can be used as the basis for stating and.
Advertisements

Lesson 6. Refinement of the Operator Model This page describes formally how we refine Figure 2.5 into a more detailed model so that we can connect it.
School of Computer ScienceG53FSP Formal Specification1 Dr. Rong Qu Introduction to Formal Specification
UML Class Diagrams: Basic Concepts. Objects –The purpose of class modeling is to describe objects. –An object is a concept, abstraction or thing that.
Module 4: Analog programming blocks. Module Objectives Analyze a control task that uses analog inputs. Connect a potentiometer to LOGO! controller and.
OOD Case Study (For parallel treatment, see Chapter 2 of the text)
An Introduction to Programming and Algorithms. Course Objectives A basic understanding of engineering problem solving process. A basic understanding of.
Functions. Quick Review What you’ll learn about Numeric Models Algebraic Models Graphic Models The Zero Factor Property Problem Solving Grapher.
Uml is made similar by the presence of four common mechanisms that apply consistently throughout the language. After constructing or developing the architecture.
1 UML Basic Training. UML Basic training2 Agenda  Definitions: requirements, design  Basics of Unified Modeling Language 1.4  SysML.
Conceptual Modelling – Behaviour
Using COMET with Visio Visio UML Modeling. Creating a Drawing After opening Visio, you will see a list of templates available.
© Kenneth C. Louden, Chapter 11 - Functional Programming, Part III: Theory Programming Languages: Principles and Practice, 2nd Ed. Kenneth C. Louden.
1 Software Requirements l Specifying system functionality and constraints l Chapters 5 and 6 ++
Solving Systems of Equations by Elimination (Addition)
Simulink Simscape by Dr. Amin Danial Asham.
CLASS DIAGRAMS A classy approach to objects. The Basic Class Diagram  Class Name  Attributes (- indicates private each would have properties or accessor/mutator.
JavaScript Introduction and Background. 2 Web languages Three formal languages HTML JavaScript CSS Three different tasks Document description Client-side.
Copyright © 2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Pearson Addison-Wesley 1.1 Modeling and Equation Solving.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. Fundamentals.
SysML and Modelica Integration Working Group Meeting 3/11/09 Peter Fritzson Wladimir Schamai.
Interface Concepts Modeling Core Team Marc Sarrel Steve Hetfield June 23, 2016.
SysML v2 Formalism Requirements Formalism WG September 15, 2016.
SysML-Modelica Integration Working Group Report (SE DSIG meeting, Washington DC 3/24/2009) Chris Paredis Georgia Tech 1.
Language = Syntax + Semantics + Vocabulary
IBM Rational Rhapsody Advanced Systems Training v7.5
Here is my personal thought about the key JP comments to MFI-5 CD5.
Source Transformations
Ch 11.6: Series of Orthogonal Functions: Mean Convergence
7.2 Arithmetic Expressions
Unit – 3 :LAMBDA CALCULUS AND FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING
Common MBSE Modeling Questions and How Ontology Helps
Teknik kendali.
SysML 2.0 Formalism Requirements and Potential Language Architectures
SysML 2.0 Formalism: Requirement Benefits, Use Cases, and Potential Language Architectures Formalism WG December 6, 2016.
Type Checking Generalizes the concept of operands and operators to include subprograms and assignments Type checking is the activity of ensuring that the.
COMPONENT & DEPLOYMENT DIAGRAMS
Functions f(x)=2x-7 g(x)=x+12 Bob Greer.
SysML v2 Formalism: Requirements & Benefits
SysML 2.0 Interface Concepts Modeling Core Team
1 Functions and Applications
UPDM in Compliance with SysML March 21, 2013 Aurelijus Morkevicius
Numerical Methods: Euler’s and Advanced Euler’s (Heun’s) Methods
Feedback Amplifiers.
Extending SysML for Integration with Solver-based Simulation Tools
Discrete Structure II: Introduction
UML Class Diagrams: Basic Concepts
Exception Handling Chapter 9.
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Digital Control Systems Waseem Gulsher
VHDL Discussion Subprograms
Faculty of Computer Science & Information System
An Introduction to Software Architecture
VHDL Discussion Subprograms
Functions.
HYPERTEXT PREPROCESSOR BY : UMA KAKKAR
Copyright © 2015, 2012, 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2015, 2012, 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Chapter 7 Expressions and Assignment Statements.
Copyright © 2015, 2012, 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Module B4 Per Unit Analysis
SysML Modelica Integration Working Group Meeting 3/4/09
Functions f(x)=2x-7 g(x)=x+12.
Copyright © 2015, 2012, 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Modeling Modelica Interfaces with SysML v1.3
SysML 2.0 Interface Concepts Modeling Core Team
Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
PRESENTED BY ADNAN M. UZAIR NOMAN
Using Physical Quantities in SysML
CHAPTER 59 TRANSISTOR EQUIVALENT CIRCUITS AND MODELS
Presentation transcript:

Clarification of typing a binding connector SYSML16-319

Current text 8.3.2.3 Binding Connector Description A Binding Connector is a connector which specifies that the properties at both ends of the connector have equal values. If the properties at the ends of a binding connector are typed by a ValueType, the connector specifies that the instances of the properties shall hold equal values, recursively through any nested properties within the connected properties. If the properties at the ends of a binding connector are typed by a Block, the connector specifies that the instances of the properties shall refer to the same block instance.[…] Constraints [1] The two ends of a binding connector shall have either the same type or types that are compatible so that equality of their values can be defined. […] 8.3.2.4 Block [2] […] (In SysML, a binding connector is not typed by an association, […])[…] 9.3.2.12 ProxyPort […] When a proxy port is connected to a single internal part, the connector shall be a binding connector, or have the same semantics as a binding connector (the value of the proxy port and the connected internal part are the same; links of associations typing the connector are between all objects and themselves, and no others). When a proxy port is connected to multiple internal parts, the connectors have the same semantics as a single binding connector to an aggregate of those parts, supporting all their features, and treating flows and invocations from outside the aggregate as if they were to those parts, and flows and invocations it receives from those parts as if they were to the outside. This aggregate is not a separate element of the system, and only groups the internal parts for purposes of binding to the proxy port. Internal connectors to proxy ports can be typed by association blocks, including when the connector is binding.[…]

Use cases untyped parametric diagram Bound references ProxyPort ProxyPort with multiple Connectors (may be typed?) typed tolerance approximate equality formalization of semantics Type conversion Connector decomposition

Parametric Diagram As mentioned in the specification

Bound references

ProxyPort coldInlet : Inlet hotInlet : Inlet «block» Faucet «proxy» cold : Waterflow hot : Waterflow in w : Water flow properties «interfaceBlock» Waterflow Inlet «equal» As mentioned in the specification

ProxyPort with multiple connectors As mentioned in the specification

ProxyPort with multiple Connectors ① virtual aggregate RTF Aug. 10th 17: The word „aggregate“ is not meant in a formal sense. This picture is wrong.

Proxy Port with multiple Connectors ② virtual specialized Block RTF Aug. 10th 17: This is more like what is meant by the specification

ProxyPort with multiple Connectors ③ AssociationBlock RTF Aug. 10th 17: It is very unclear how this is to be used.

ProxyPort with multiple connectors Discussion ProxyPort with multiple connectors Unclear how to interpret the specification and what semantics it defines for the AssociationBlock. RTF Aug. 10th 17: The RTF agrees that it needs some clarification. Advantages Disadvantages As mentioned in the specification

tolerance RTF Aug. 10th 17: An existing way to define this would be a Property based requirement in a parametric diagram. Julio‘s suggestion

tolerance Discussion Advantages Just one connector defines equality of all value properties Disadvantages This semantics would be completely new and unusual for the binding connector. The tolerance might not be the same for all value properties. There is already a working solution (property based requirements).

approximate equality Axel‘s attempt on understanding Julio‘s suggestion

approximate equality Discussion Advantages It is possible to specify, that two values are only approximately equal Two measured values could be assured to be approximately equal. Disadvantages Unnecessary complication: When one of the values is a calculated value the calculation will usually define a range (Stereotype Interval). There is no need to define that for the connector. Inconsistent semantics: The binding connector means usually that the two values are the same value. For example when two circuits are connected electrically the Voltage on the output of one of them is the same as on the input of the other. When it is measured on both sides, the measurement might be different, but the physics says they measure the same reality.

formalization of semantics Conrad‘s suggestion

formalization of semantics Discussion formalization of semantics Advantages Formal semantics allows to be precise Remark This can be used in the formal description of the specification. All BindingConnectors would then have a type, because this is what defines them: Connectors typed by the equality-Association. Connectors with another type or without are normal Connectors. The semantic library is not accessible to the user. Especially he doesn’t need to add new Associations to this library. A notation could get defined for a BindingConnector, making the underlying model transparent to the user. Our diagrams don’t need to change.

Type conversion RTF Aug. 10th 17: By defining Scalar as the Supertype of all numeric Types, we could define that these ValueTypes are compatible. Sandy‘s suggestion

Type conversion Discussion Advantages Formal definition of compatible types Disadvantages Unclear how this is to be interpreted. An association means that one element is using the features of another element. Which features are used here? A mathematical formula doesn’t depend on the quantity kinds, so no conversion should be necessary (if it is, it should get changed). It is not necessary to convert units. This is already defined in QUDV.

Connector decomposition Sandy‘s suggestion

Connector decomposition Discussion Connector decomposition Advantages Disadvantages Can a connector between a constraint property and a part property be a binding connector? Easily replaced with Block-Typed Constraint Parameter