UML 2 activity model support for systems engineering functional flow diagrams

Systems Engineering

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 249-265

  Bock, Conrad ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Activity diagram; EFFBD; Functional flow; UML

Indexed keywords

ACTIVITY DIAGRAMS; ENHANCED FUNCTIONAL FLOW BLOCK DIAGRAM (EFFBD); FUNCTIONAL FLOW; UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGES (UML);

CODES (SYMBOLS); COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES; GRAPHIC METHODS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SPECIFICATIONS; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING;

EID: 2942757434     PISSN: 10981241     EISSN: 15206858     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sys.10053     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. J. Axelsson, Model based systems engineering using a continuous-time extension of the Unified Modeling Language (UML), Syst Eng 5(3) (2002), 165-179.
2. T. Bahill and J. Daniels, Using objected-oriented and UML tools for hardware design: A case study, Syst Eng 6(1) (2003), 28-48.
3. B. Blanchard and W. Fabrycky, System engineering and analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990.
4. C. Bock, UML 2 activity and action models, J Object Technol 2(4) (July-August 2003a).
5. C. Bock, UML without pictures, IEEE Software, special issue on model-driven development, (September/October 2003b).
6. S. Friedenthal and R. Burkhart, Extending UML from software to systems, INCOSE Symp, July 2003.
7. J. Grady, System requirements analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1993.
8. F. Kockler, et al., Systems engineering management guide, 000802001202-5, Defense Systems Management College, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1990.
9. J. Long, Relationships between common graphical representations in system engineering, ViTech Corporation, 2002.
10. J. Long, M. Alford, M. Dyer, L. Marker, et al., The software requirements engineering methodology (SREM) notebook; TRW CDRL A006, BMDATC Contract DASG 60-75-C-0022; December 1975. U.S. National Institute of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD.
11. H. Lykins, S. Friedenthal, and A. Meilich, Adapting UML for an object oriented systems engineering method (OOSEM), Proc Tenth Annu INCOSE Int Symp, Minneapolis, July 16-20, 2000.
12. J. Martin and J. Odell, Object-oriented analysis and design, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992.
13. I. Ögren, Possible tailoring of the UML for systems engineering purposes, Syst Eng 3(4) (2000), 212-224.
14. D. Oliver, T. Kelliher, and J. Keegan, Jr., Engineering complex systems with models and objects, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
15. OMG (Object Management Group), UML 2.0 superstructure specification, August 2003, http://www.omg.org/cgibin/doc?ptc/03-08-02.
16. A. Pandikow and A. Törne, Support for object-orientation in AP-233, Proc Eleventh Annu INCOSE Int Symp, Melbourne, July 1-5, 2001 a.
17. A. Pandikow and A. Törne, Integrating modern software engineering and systems engineering specification techniques, Proc Fourteenth Annu Int Conf Software & Syst Eng Appl, Paris, December 4-6, 2001.
18. SE-DSIG (OMG Systems Engineering Domain Special Interest Group), UML for systems engineering RFI, February 1, 2002, hltp://www.omg.org/technology/documents/UML for Systems Engineering_RFI.hlm.
19. SE-DSIG (OMG Systems Engineering Domain Special Interest Group), UML for systems engineering RFP, March 2003a, http.//www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/03-03-41.
20. SE-DSIG (OMG Systems Engineering Domain Special Interest Group), 2003b, http://syseng.omg.org/.
21. J. Skipper, private communication, 2003.