3 ms·

A decision was made to have ISO 10303-1e2 just reflect what has been published to date, then start work immediately on ISO 10303-1e3 that will also contain the

by rjsw 6y ago

A decision was made to have ISO 10303-1e2 just reflect what has been published to date, then start work immediately on ISO 10303-1e3 that will also contain the description of how SysML will be used. The main use case of ISO 10303-15 is to be able to validate XML exchange files in the new format.

Rochus 6y ago
I expect it will take many years until the mentioned technical specifications become regular standards. I would be very surprised to see a third edition of ISO 10303-1 within the next eight to ten years. From what I've seen up to now is that SysML might get a similar position as UML in the todays version. Even if there is a feasible mapping from SysML XMI to EXPRESS, the official description language will still be EXPRESS in future editions of the ISO 10303 series. Fads come and go; we saw this with UML, and we will see this with SysML; SysML is simply not suited to replace EXPRESS, even less than UML. I bet that in seven years at the latest, SysML will be eclipsed by a new fad.
- rjsw 6y ago
  Well, prepare to be surprised.
  - Rochus 6y ago
    If I were actually surprised, ISO/TC 184/SC 4 would have done an extremely poor job in terms of reporting and public relations. But let's continue this discussion in five years, then we'll know more.
    - rjsw 6y ago
      There has already been one successful ballot on ISO 10303-4000, you won't have to wait five years. I don't really see that there was a need for public relations, we are trying to maintain backwards compatibility with existing software and models.
      - Rochus 6y ago
        > I don't really see that there was a need for public relations, we are trying to maintain backwards compatibility with existing software and models. Sounds like a statement from a state monopoly with a five-year plan. Joking aside: You have just experienced a use case for this yourself. There is nothing at all on the web about what you claim. So I as a developer and user of the standards have no information whatsoever about what is bubbling up in the "black box ISO", if EXPRESS is really to be replaced by SysML (which I still do not believe). There is no mention of this in the presentations, strategies, and architectures I have access to. Who is "we"? What's your role in ISO?
        rjsw 6y ago
        > Who is "we"? TC184/SC4/{WG11,WG12} - a mix of people who have been developing STEP since the start and some new blood. I'm one of the older ones, I wrote ISO 10303-45 and maintain an EXPRESS compiler used in the document production process.
        Rochus 6y ago
        > TC184/SC4/{WG11,WG12} I see; this gives a new perspective to this discussion and increases my uneasiness; looks like the "holy wars of STEP" (NIST Special Publication 939) was going into a new round behind the scenes (or never stopped). Does that mean we have to say goodbye to EXPRESS (i.e. it is optional as a description method)? Or is SysML just another method to specify Business object models (next to EXPRESS and UML)? > an EXPRESS compiler used in the document production process Do you mean the Eengine (written in Lisp)? > Concerning "public relations": e.g. the SysML v2 Submission Team (SST) did quite a good job in communicating their plans and the future direction of SysML; so even long before the standard is published I have a good grasp of what to expect, so also on the new text representation which will make MBSE much more efficient (like the advent of hardware description languages quickly made schematics obsolete for real world designs); this gives me enough time to prepare for the paradign shift (e.g. adapt my tools etc.). It is only to be suspected that STEP will still be based on the old SysML version with a different metamodel and no textual representation (i.e. the only "textual representation" is XMI or XSD).

by rjsw 6y ago

Rochus 6y ago

I expect it will take many years until the mentioned technical specifications become regular standards. I would be very surprised to see a third edition of ISO 10303-1 within the next eight to ten years. From what I've seen up to now is that SysML might get a similar position as UML in the todays version. Even if there is a feasible mapping from SysML XMI to EXPRESS, the official description language will still be EXPRESS in future editions of the ISO 10303 series. Fads come and go; we saw this with UML, and we will see this with SysML; SysML is simply not suited to replace EXPRESS, even less than UML. I bet that in seven years at the latest, SysML will be eclipsed by a new fad.

rjsw 6y ago
Well, prepare to be surprised.
- Rochus 6y ago
  If I were actually surprised, ISO/TC 184/SC 4 would have done an extremely poor job in terms of reporting and public relations. But let's continue this discussion in five years, then we'll know more.
  - rjsw 6y ago
    There has already been one successful ballot on ISO 10303-4000, you won't have to wait five years. I don't really see that there was a need for public relations, we are trying to maintain backwards compatibility with existing software and models.
    - Rochus 6y ago
      > I don't really see that there was a need for public relations, we are trying to maintain backwards compatibility with existing software and models. Sounds like a statement from a state monopoly with a five-year plan. Joking aside: You have just experienced a use case for this yourself. There is nothing at all on the web about what you claim. So I as a developer and user of the standards have no information whatsoever about what is bubbling up in the "black box ISO", if EXPRESS is really to be replaced by SysML (which I still do not believe). There is no mention of this in the presentations, strategies, and architectures I have access to. Who is "we"? What's your role in ISO?
      - rjsw 6y ago
        > Who is "we"? TC184/SC4/{WG11,WG12} - a mix of people who have been developing STEP since the start and some new blood. I'm one of the older ones, I wrote ISO 10303-45 and maintain an EXPRESS compiler used in the document production process.
        Rochus 6y ago
        > TC184/SC4/{WG11,WG12} I see; this gives a new perspective to this discussion and increases my uneasiness; looks like the "holy wars of STEP" (NIST Special Publication 939) was going into a new round behind the scenes (or never stopped). Does that mean we have to say goodbye to EXPRESS (i.e. it is optional as a description method)? Or is SysML just another method to specify Business object models (next to EXPRESS and UML)? > an EXPRESS compiler used in the document production process Do you mean the Eengine (written in Lisp)? > Concerning "public relations": e.g. the SysML v2 Submission Team (SST) did quite a good job in communicating their plans and the future direction of SysML; so even long before the standard is published I have a good grasp of what to expect, so also on the new text representation which will make MBSE much more efficient (like the advent of hardware description languages quickly made schematics obsolete for real world designs); this gives me enough time to prepare for the paradign shift (e.g. adapt my tools etc.). It is only to be suspected that STEP will still be based on the old SysML version with a different metamodel and no textual representation (i.e. the only "textual representation" is XMI or XSD).