Sys ML 2 0 Visualization Capability Working Group

Sys. ML 2. 0 – Visualization Capability Working Group Progress for OMG System Modeling & Assessment Working Group Chris Schreiber (LMCO), Josh Feingold (TSP), Marc Sarrel (JPL), Elyse Fosse (JPL) 2/28/2021 1

System Modeling Assessment & Roadmap Joint OMG/INCOSE Working Group § Objectives: – Assess effectiveness of system modeling with Sys. ML in support of MBSE Adoption and Use – Develop a preliminary System Modeling Roadmap to improve effectiveness – Use the Roadmap to influence the Sys. ML specification, tool vendor implementations, related standards efforts, and industry collaborations § Scope: – Sys. ML modeling language and tools – Modeling languages and tools that support use of Sys. ML (e. g. constraint language, transformations) – Reuse libraries (e. g. , models, practices, . . ) – Integrations with other engineering models and tools § Focus Areas: – Systems Engineering Use Cases – System Engineering Concept Model – Sys. ML v 2/MBSE Capabilities including Model Construction, Model Visualization, Model Analysis, Model Management, Model Interoperability, § Members: – IBM, EADS, LMC, NASA/JPL, Raytheon, John Deere and Various Consultants 2/28/2021 2

MBSE Capability: Visualize Model Data § Task objective – Elaborate concepts, requirements, and metrics for effective model construction that support the next generation system modeling language (Sys. ML v 2) § Use Cases – Systems engineers, other discipline engineers, and systems engineering data consumers visualize system model data throughout the lifecycle to support system specification, design, analysis, and verification activities. § Mo. E – – Ability to represent model data in a variety of forms Ability to navigate between model views Ability to navigate to model views from other disciplines (Engineering and other) Ability to define ad hoc views of model data § Driving Requirement & Associated Requirements: – (R 3) The next-generation modeling language and tools must provide flexible and rich visualization and reporting capabilities to support a broad range of model users. – Also. . . – (R 5) Support broader context of MBE – (R 8) Efficient and intuitive to a broad range of users – (R 11) Modular and extensible for future technology 2/28/2021 3

Limitations of Sys. ML 1. 4 - Visualization § Separation of Model Construction from Visualization – Diagram construction left to modeler – Model elements can be removed, but added elements cannot be automatically added to diagrams – Some tool capabilities to auto-create, but not necessarily rule-based § Specification of Sys. ML Diagrammatic Views – Appearance of Sys. ML diagrams is fixed with no facility for user-defined rules – Modelers sometimes make modeling choices to accommodate immediate needs, resulting in more work later or deferring robust modeling § View Construction and Layout – Layout of diagram elements manual requiring manual maintenance – Facility for “semantic zoom” § In-Work, Changed Data and Model Compare – The current spec is silent on visualizing changes and differences between model baselines 2/28/2021 4

SME Services - Visualization § Relevant SME Services – Render/Produce Model Views § Define Model Views § Present Results – Specify Viewpoints – Extend/Customize Model Language – Model Queries to Support Visualization – Manage Changes to Model § Summarized Inputs/Outputs – User-Defined Input § Domain-Specific Symbology § Controller Data – Template Input – Source/Target Model Input Data – Domain-Specific View Output – Rendered Controller View Output – Rendered Compared Model Data View Output (Model/Diagram/Element) 2/28/2021 5

Requirements Decomposition § Following Model-View-Controller paradigm § Back End Data Structure - Model § Front End Visualization - View § Translation Layer - Controller Model Data Definition Meaningful, Repeatable View Construction Navigation, Flexibility and Relevance 2/28/2021 6

MVC as View and Viewpoint 2/28/2021 7

Requirements Decomposition 2/28/2021 8

Requirements – Front End Visualization § This spec to be constrained to Systems Diagrams. § High-level conceptual definitions – What does each type of drawing object represent? – Drawings, Nodes, Edges, Ports, Labels, Annotations, Nesting – External Links § Palette definition rules – How to create a set of drawing object representations to describe a system – Level of differentiation acceptable within a single visual object definition § Provide core, extensible palette definitions – Updated “classic” Sys. ML style – Simplified “iconographic” style 2/28/2021 9

Requirements – Object Template Definition § Object Template Definition must be able to store a configurable representation of the UI for a node, edge, port, drawing, or label. § Reference frame – Relative coordinates – Absolute coordinates – Hierarchy of UI elements § Define graphical object-to-graphical element attribute linkage 2/28/2021 10

Requirements – OTD – UI Elements § Geometric – – – Shape Image Text Splitter Transformation Group § Logical – If-else – Switch 2/28/2021 11

Requirements – OTD – UI Elements § Action – – On click On double-click On drag On mouse-wheel § Elements attributes – – – Color Name Tooltip Gradient Hyperlink Etc. 2/28/2021 12

Requirements – Object Template Definition § Define graphical-object-to-graphical-element attribute linkage so that attributes of objects such as Nodes and Edges can be accessed by the elements that compose their UIs. § Attribute values § Basic operators – If-else – String manipulation – Basic math § Extensible operator language 2/28/2021 13

Requirements – Rich Diagram Persistence § Store and refer to a set of Object Template Definitions § Nodes § Edges § Ports § Labels § Graphs – Intergraph describes connections between individual graphs § Position – Units relatable to some physical dimension § Sizes – Units relatable to some physical dimension 2/28/2021 14

Requirements – Rich Diagram Persistence § Nesting (sub-graphs) – Expand/collapse state of owner nodes of sub-diagrams § Relational – Edge connects to node x (and port y) not simply have the end of the edge at the location of node x. – Ports owned by nodes – Nodes owned by graphs – Graphs root of owned by nodes – Edges owned by graphs (ordinary or intergraph) – Labels owed by ports, nodes or edges 2/28/2021 15

Requirements – Translation Layer § Explicit mapping between back end and front end § Comprehensible – A viewer should, without needing to explicitly view the source data, be able to determine the approximate meaning or significance of the diagram. § Reproducible – With access to only the Back End and Translation Layer, be able to create a functional duplicate of the front end visualization. § Unambiguous – With access to only the Front End and Translation Layer, be able to derive important aspects and critical structure of the back end data. – Facilitates a single interpretation of the data by multiple users. 2/28/2021 16

Requirements – Model-to-View Mapping § Data to graph objects – Refer to Object Template Set § Data to rendering style – Choose particular Object Templates to apply – Control attributes referenced by Object Templates § Data to layout properties – Spacing – Style – Other preferences § Data to layout constraints – – – Swim lanes Groups Edge routing Sequencing Separation Position 2/28/2021 17

BACKUP 2/28/2021 18

Model Visualization – Intent and Derivation § Driving Requirement – (R 3) The next-generation modeling language and tools must provide flexible and rich visualization and reporting capabilities to support a broad range of model users. § High Level Intent and Derived “Requirements” – The next-generation modeling language and tools must enable visual representation of model data in a variety of forms. [R 3] – Visualization must easily navigate to/from model data to other visualizations from other Engineering (and Program Disciplines) [R 3, 5, 8] – Visualization must include non-diagrammatic views (tables, matrices, etc. ) [R 3, 8] – Visualization must support both static and dynamic representations [R 3, 11] – Visualization must support SE Use Cases [R 3, 8] – Visualizations should be initially simple [R 3, 8] – Visualizations should provide easy access to associated data (meta data) [R 3, 5] – Visualization should provide some ability to manage appropriate data from the visualization back to the model [R 3, 11] 2/28/2021 19

SME/Sys. ML 2 Service Extend and customize modeling language Present language concept Customize Language Customize Service Interopera te Construct Model Visualize Model Analyze Model Manage Model Support Workflow Collaborati on Visualization Services - Detail x x Create symbol x x Update symbol x x Delete symbol x x Assign symbol to concept x x Update user interface Define model views x x Service Description Input User-defined input for domain symbology - Customized language data - Custom language meta data x Filter data x Define template Present results x Filterable selection data - Existing template information - User input to template - Template meta data (i. e. version, etc. ) Output Domain-specific symbology available for viewpoint definition - Incorporated custom language elements (symbol, note, etc. ) - Incorporated custom language meta data (mouse-over, queriable, etc. ) Rendered Filtered View Saved, controlled template available for selection - Selected controller data (including filtered info) - Default view information Present default views x Present customized views x Present query results x x Present analysis/execution results x x Present validation results x x Specify viewpoints (includes both query definition and presentation definition) Define Viewpoint x Controller Data - User Input - Controller input needs - User Input Rendered View Rendered View Rendered Controller View 2/28/2021 20

Stakeholder Context for Visualization System Modeler Model Data Contributor Model Data User - Heavy Model User Modeling Tool and Language Traditional System Definition Pattern and Ontology Development - Light Model User Contextual Interaction and Modification Attribute and Value Definition Analysis - Data Consumer Read-Only Use Data Association and Connection Ad-hoc and Alternative Viewing 2/28/2021 21

Systems Modeling Environment Conceptual Architecture Need to refine definition of the conceptual architecture to account for additional stakeholders and uses 22

MVC - Open. MBEE Example 2/28/2021 23

SME Requirement #3 - Visualization § 3. The next-generation modeling language and tools must provide flexible and rich visualization and reporting capabilities to support a broad range of model users. Sys. ML currently includes concepts for view and viewpoint. Tool vendors and end users have been able to apply this capability to query the model and provide flexible reporting capability. The next generation must extend this capability with advanced visualization techniques that include dynamic zoom, filtering, and traversal of model relationships, and visualizing the dynamic behavior of a system, such as provided by simulations. The modeling language must also support symbol libraries that extend well beyond the current Sys. ML notations. It is also expected that the modeling environment will provide a simplified web interface to dynamically view the model from a diverse set of viewpoints. 2/28/2021 24

MBSE Capability: Visualize Model Data § Task objective – Elaborate concepts, requirements, and metrics for effective model construction that support the next generation system modeling language (Sys. ML v 2) § Use Cases – Systems engineers, other discipline engineers, and systems engineering data consumers visualize system model data throughout the lifecycle to support system specification, design, analysis, and verification activities. § Mo. E – – Ability to represent model data in a variety of forms Ability to navigate between model views Ability to navigate to model views from other disciplines (Engineering and other) Ability to define ad hoc views of model data § High Level Intent/Driving Requirement: – The next-generation modeling language and tools must enable visual representation of model data in a variety of forms. (now in back end) – Visualization must easily navigate to/from model data to other visualizations from other Engineering (and Program Disciplines) (tool requirement, partially captured in front end) – Visualization must include non-diagrammatic views (tables, matrices, etc. ) (need to determine if this is a tool issue or whether spec wants to be this broad) – Visualization must support both static and dynamic representations (likely a tool requirement) – Visualization must support SE Use Cases – Visualizations should be initially simple (made more explicit in translation layer) – Visualizations should provide easy access to associated data (meta data) (decomposed into per-layer requirements) – Visualization should provide some ability to manage appropriate data from the visualization back to the model (this is a tool requirement, but also addressed to some extent in translation layer - unambiguous) 2/28/2021 25

Stakeholder Visualization Drivers - Visualization Paradigm – Purpose for visualization by stakeholder type - Interaction Constraint – Extent to which stakeholder input should be constrained by language - Contribution - Ability to modify model data during interaction with visualization - Extension – Possible additional needs for visualization beyond pure system engineering process 2/28/2021 26

§ Informed by SE Use Cases § Visualization Stakeholders – Modeling User – includes users with requirements for CRUD access including multiple manipulation modes (GUI, bulk-load, etc. ) – Domain User – includes users with requirements for limited or access controlled CRUD access and unlimited view-only access (other SE’s, other Eng domains) – Casual User – includes all users with requirements for view-only access § Visualization Types Taxonomy § Applicable Standards – ISO 10303 § Special Discussion on the Requirement to Use Sys. ML Syntax (Diagramming Conventions) in Visualizations § Special Discussion on the Use of Sys. ML Extensions and Domain. Specific Views (i. e. iconography, Safety views, etc. ) 2/28/2021 27

Categorizations of Data Visualization Types § 2 D-Planar – Examples – § Cartograms § Point Distributions § Contour Maps § 3 D-Volumetric – Examples – § CAD § Surface and Volume Geometries § Point Cloud and Heat Map (MRI) § Temporal (not just Time!) – Examples – § Timeline/Time Series/Alluvial § Flow, Sankey, Arc § Multi-Dimensional – Examples – § Categorization – Pie Chart, Histogram, Bar Chart, Tree Map, Stacked Area § Relationship – Parallel Set, Spider § Hierarchical – Examples – § General Tree, Dendrogram, Radial Tree, Hyperbolic Tree, Stack Map § Network – Examples – § Node Link § Matrix § Radial Dependency § Hive Plot 2/28/2021 28

SE Data Uses – The “V” § Stakeholder Needs – CONOPS § Mission Timelines/Events/Scenarios – Timeline, Hierarchical, Network, 2 D and 3 D Visualization – Mission Needs – Hierarchical, n. Dimensional § Requirements Development and Management – Requirements – Hierarchical, Network, 3 D, Temporal § Architecture – – Functional Architecture – Hierarchical, n. D, Temporal, Network Physical Architecture – Hierarchical, Temporal, 3 D, n. D, Network Mission Critical Event/Item/Process – Timeline, Hierarchical, Temporal, Network, 2 D, 3 D, n. D Budgets and Allocation – Hierarchical, Temporal, Network § Implementation – covered mainly in Detail Design Discipline Tools § Integration – – Assembly Sequence – Timeline, Hierarchical, 2 D, 3 D, n. D, Temporal § Verification – – Verification Plan – Timeline, Network, Hierarchical, Temporal § Validation – Validation Plan – Timeline, Network, Hierarchical, Temporal 2/28/2021 29

SE Data Uses - Other § Operation/Sustainment § Disposal – Timeline, Temporal, 3 D § Analysis (System Level) – System Performance – Decision Analysis – Risk § Specialties – Reliability – System Safety – Etc. 2/28/2021 30

SE Use Cases - Abstract § SE Process/Practice – Process Output – Visualization Type 2/28/2021 31

MBE To-Be State Source: NDIA MBE Final Report dated February 2011 Operational Models System Models Analysis Models ò () U G s Hardware Models Component Models SSET Q RCLR Q Operational Models Analysis Models U(s) G(s) ò System Models Component Models Program Management Test Operational Models System Models Manufacturing Systems Hardware Logistics Customer Software Configuration Management § Needs § Current Capabilities § Budget/Schedule MBE Enhances Affordability, Shortens Delivery and Reduces Risk Across the Acquisition Life Cycle

2/28/2021 33

2/28/2021 34

2/28/2021 35