Object Process Methodology: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:55, 24 June 2020

Revision as of 07:34, 27 July 2020

Line 1:

{{Multiple issues|

{{RefimproveMore citations needed|date=April 2009}}

{{Primary sources|date=May 2017}}

{{Copypaste|date=May 2017}}

Line 33:

The first book on OPM, ''Object-Process Methodology: a Holistic Systems Paradigm'', was published in 2002,<ref name="Object-Process Methodology – A Holistic Systems Paradigm">{{cite book |last=Dori |first=Dov |authorlink=Dov Dori |title=Object-Process Methodology: A Holistic Systems Paradigm |date=2002 |publisher=[[Springer-Verlag]] |___location=Berlin, Heidelberg, New York |isbn=978-3540654711 |doi=10.1007/978-3-642-56209-9 }}</ref> and OPM has since been applied in many domains, ranging from the [[Semantic Web]] to defense and to molecular biology.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Perelman |first1=Valeria |last2=Somekh |first2=Judith |last3=Dori |first3=Dov |title=Model verification framework with application to molecular biology |date=2011 |publisher=Society for Computer Simulation International |pages=140–145 |url=http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2048494 |ref=MolecularBiology}}</ref> The recognition that models can and should become the central artifact in system lifecycles has been gaining momentum in recent years, giving rise to [[model-based systems engineering]] (MBSE) as an evolving field in the area of systems engineering.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fischer |first1=Amit |last2=Nolan |first2=Mike |last3=Friedenthal |first3=Sanford |last4=Loeffler |first4=Michael |last5=Sampson |first5=Mark |last6=Bajaj |first6=Manas |last7=VanZandt |first7=Lonnie |last8=Hovey |first8=Krista |last9=Palmer |first9=John |last10=Hart |first10=Laura |title=3.1.1 Model Lifecycle Management for MBSE |journal=INCOSE International Symposium |date=2014 |volume=24 |pages=207–229 |doi=10.1002/j.2334-5837.2014.tb03145.x}}</ref>

SysML and OPM have been serving as the two MBSE languages, but since SysML was adopted as a standard about eight years before OPM and has been backed by top-notch vendors, its adoption is currently more widespread. However, OPM is rapidly gaining acceptance in academia and industry.{{cncitation needed|date=January 2020}}

In August 2014, after five years of work by ISO TC184/SC5, ISO adopted OPM as ISO/PAS 19450.<ref name="ISO19450" />

Line 123:

; Transforming links : A transforming link specifies a connection between a process and its transformee (the object it creates, consumes, or changes the object state). The three kinds of transforming links are:

# ''Consumption link'': A transforming link specifying that the linked process consumes (destroys, eliminates) the linked object, the consumee. Existence of the consumee is precondition (or part of the precondition) to the activation of the process. Graphically, an arrow with a closed arrowhead pointing from the consumee to the consuming process defines the consumption link. By assumption, the consumed object disappears as soon as the process begins execution. The syntax of a consumption link OPL sentence is: Processing consumes Consumee.

# ''Effect link'': AnA transforming link specifying that the linked process affects the linked object, which is the affectee, i.e., the process causes some unspecified change in the state of the affectee. Graphically, a bidirectional arrow with two closed arrowheads, one pointing in each direction between the affecting process and the affected object, shall define the effect link. The syntax of an effect link OPL sentence is: Processing affects Affectee.

# ''Result link'': A transforming link specifying that the linked process creates (generates, yields) the linked object, which is the resultee. Graphically, an arrow with a closed arrowhead pointing from the creating process to the resultee shall define a result link. The syntax of a result link OPL sentence is: Processing yields Resultee.

Line 196:

; Unidirectional tagged structural link : Has a user-defined semantics regarding the nature of the relation from one thing to the other. Graphically, an arrow with an open arrowhead. Along the tagged structural link, the modeler should record a meaningful tag in the form of a textual phrase that expresses the nature of the structural relation between the connected objects (or processes) and makes sense when placed in the OPL sentence whose syntax follows.

; Unidirectional null-tagged structural link : AnA unidirectional tagged structural link with no tag. In this case, the default unidirectional tag is used. The modeler has the option of setting the default unidirectional tag for a specific system or a set of systems. If no default is defined, the default tag is "relates to".

; Bidirectional tagged structural link : When the tags in both directions are meaningful and not just the inverse of each other, they may be recorded by two tags on either side of a single bidirectional tagged structural link. Each tag shall align on the side of the arrow with the harpoon edge sticking out of the arrowhead unambiguously determining the direction in which each relation applies. The syntax of the resulting tagged structural link is two separate tagged structural link OPL sentences, one for each direction. Graphically, a line with harpoon shaped arrowheads on opposite sides at both ends of the link's line shall.

; Reciprocal tagged structural link : A reciprocal tagged structural link is a bidirectional tagged structural link with no more than one tag. In either case, reciprocity indicate that the tag of a bidirectional structural link has the same semantics for its forward and backward directions. When no tag appears, the default tag shall be "are related". The syntax of the reciprocal tagged structural link with only one tag shall be: Source-thing and destination thing are reciprocity-tag. The syntax of the reciprocal tagged structural link with no tag is: Source thing and Destination-thing are related.