Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Deliver Technology Area roadmaps Articulate what is possible and when Coordinate Joint Business Unit research projects Rationalize Common Component Technology Sourcing through - Make/Buy Process - Strategic Alliances
  • Primary goals of MDA are portability, interoperability and reusability through architectural separation of concerns. The models included in the integrated model are: Computation Independent Model (CIM) The Operational Business Logic. Domain model or DoDAF Operational Architecture. Platform Independent Model (PIM) The platform neutral System Implementation of the Operational Business Logic. Technology-neutral virtual machine system model or the software system architecture extending the DoDAF system architecture. A detailed model, including pre- and post-conditions specified in Object Constraint Language (OCL) and semantics in Action Language. Platform Model The Platform. Provides a set of technical concepts, representing the different kinds of parts that make up a platform, and the services provided by that platform. Could include other service specific PIMs. Platform Specific Model (PSM) The System. Combines the specifications in the PIM with the details that specify how that system uses a specific platform model.
  • SEDSIG – system engineering domain specific interest group
  • OMGBostonKeynote05-06-04.ppt

    1. 1. Architecting with Models and UML/SysML Dr. Kenneth Kung Architecture Technology Area Director Raytheon Company June 2005 © 2005 Raytheon Company All Rights Reserved
    2. 2. Raytheon Company SAS IIS NCS IDS MS RTSC RAC
    3. 3. Four Strategic Business Areas (SBA’s) Missile Defense Homeland Security Precision Engagement Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) The SBA’s Focus on Cross-Business Opportunities
    4. 4. Technology Strategy to Support Business and SBAs Business Units Strategic Business Area MS RAC IDS NCS IIS SAS Technology Areas RF EO/Lasers Processing Arch/Syst Int Missile Defense Precision Strike Homeland Security ISR Correlate Rationalize Strategize RF EO/Lasers Processing Arch/Syst Int Mat’l & Structure Mat’l/Struct <ul><li>Architecture Vision </li></ul><ul><li>Reference Architectures </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation Guidelines </li></ul><ul><li>Repositories for Reuse </li></ul><ul><li>Architecture Review Board (ARB) </li></ul><ul><li>Training and Certification </li></ul><ul><li>Framework and Standards </li></ul><ul><li>REAP (Raytheon Enterprise Arch Process) </li></ul>
    5. 5. Architecture Vision – System of Elements™ Traditional System of Elements ™
    6. 6. Reference Architecture Raytheon Enterprise Architecture Process (REAP) Customer Needs Specific Program Requirements Apply Ref Arch Technology, Lessons Learned, Best Practices Applicable Strategy statement “ System of Elements ” Reference Architecture Repository Guidance; Examples; Reusable Elements Reference Architecture offers a single point of departure in implementing mission solutions Governed by ARB Mission Solution Businesses
    7. 7. System Architecture Implementation Approach
    8. 8. Operational View
    9. 9. Logical View Layered Architecture Patterns
    10. 10. Physical View Hardware Block Diagram Deployment Diagram Design Documentation <ul><li>Product Data </li></ul><ul><li>Standards Profile </li></ul><ul><li>Software Documentation </li></ul><ul><li>Timing/Performance Data </li></ul>
    11. 11. Architecture Analysis <ul><ul><li>Operator Roles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Activity Threads </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use Cases </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Domain Collaboration Diagram </li></ul></ul>Operational/Mission Analysis Process/Workflow Analysis Scenarios/ Events Mission Outcomes Actor Inputs/ Events System Outputs Messages/ Data Action Timing Digital Product Model Logical/Functional Analysis Physical Analysis <ul><ul><li>Physical Architecture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Product Data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Size/Timing Estimates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Design Patterns </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Foundation Classes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Behavioral Patterns </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Logical Architecture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Executable Architecture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Design Verification </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Integrated Model “ SysML DoDAF Operational Architecture” OVs CIM - Computation Independent Model Elaborated “SysML DoDAF System Architecture” SVs PIM - Platform Independent Model Hardware and OS Independent Common Services + HW & OS (OACE) Platform Model Delivered Components PSM - Platform Specific Model Platform Profile Mission Profile Unit Test, VV&A Drive Architecture-Based M&S Analyze Requirements Testing Space Net Centric Stand- alone Live M&S Drive Testing X X X
    13. 13. UML Profiles: Major MDA Autocode Generation Mechanism <ul><li>UML profiles support the development of domain or technology specific semantics extensions to UML. </li></ul><ul><li>Association of code to these standard profiles is a major mechanism for auto-code generation. </li></ul><ul><li>Profiles can be built on other profiles, and multiple profiles can be used together. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Define a majority of the Platform Model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Key Language Mappings profiles include CORBA, DSS (publish& subscribe) and XML-SOAP. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Key facilities profiles include: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Scheduling, Performance, and Time (RT support) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Testing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>QoS and Fault Tolerance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Key domain profiles include SysML and DoDAF. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SysML is the System Engineering UML-2 Profile in process of being adopted. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SysML has defined interfaces to HLA, MATHLAB, AP233, SystemC, and other SysEng constructs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>DoDAF will become a SysML Profile. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    14. 14. UML Profile for Systems Engineering (SysML) - Observations <ul><li>SEDSIG RFP for UML Profile for System Engineering Very Solid </li></ul><ul><li>Raytheon supports and agrees with this development </li></ul><ul><li>SysML Partners have </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Good Technical product </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strive for consensus, both users and vendors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to push forward, despite schedule slips </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. UML Profile for Systems Engineering (SysML) - Expectations <ul><li>A model driven language for holistic system representation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>SysML is broader than UML can do </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can capture all salient aspects of complex system design </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A language that is intuitive for system engineers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Supporting proven systems engineering concepts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The language must not be a barrier to traditional system engineering methods </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A language that facilitates, but does not mandate OO concepts </li></ul><ul><li>A language that is consistent with, or transitionable to, UML used in software development </li></ul><ul><li>A language that is embraced by a critical mass of tool vendors </li></ul>
    16. 16. UML Profile for DoDAF and MoDAF (UPDM) - Observations <ul><li>Customers demanding DoDAF artifacts </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of Standard expression of DoDAF views in UML </li></ul><ul><li>Non-standard tools and techniques for modeling DoDAF </li></ul><ul><li>RFP </li></ul><ul><ul><li>very solid team </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Got DoDAF 2 key people involved </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Submission Development </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Raytheon values this activity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Will participate in the development of this profile </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. UML Profile for DoDAF and MoDAF (UPDM) - Expectations <ul><li>A set of representations that is intuitive to our customer, and to non-UML engineers </li></ul><ul><li>A model-based approach for developing DoDAF/MoDAF views </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consistency between views, based on underlying model </li></ul></ul><ul><li>An implementable profile, based on UML 2/SysML </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More consistent tools – compliance beyond basics (intermediate or complete) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Usable data exchange between tools </li></ul><ul><ul><li>XMI - XML meta data interface </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Expect tools to compliant with XMI to support interoperability </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Diagram exchange interface </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Final Thoughts <ul><li>Integration of processes has blurred the distinction between software and system </li></ul><ul><li>Integrated tool from operational views down to executable code can ease the communication among engineers from various disciplines </li></ul><ul><li>OMG is building the right products </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Encourage faster consensus building </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Challenge: Very few of us get to design a brand new system. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How do we bring the legacy applications into the framework? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How do we decompose their functionality to be re-used in an SOA architecture? </li></ul></ul>