[SystemSafety] Another question

[Les Chambers]

Olwen
Re comment:
If you explore the formal methods literature, you'll 
easily find modelling techniques that UML does not properly embrace.

Can you name one or two. Always ready to be educated.

Les


> On 24/09/18 23:41, Les Chambers wrote
> 
> <snip>
> 
>  >>> ... I am with you on the UML. It's just a container for all the 
> modelling techniques we've developed over the past 50 years. No 
> developer has to consume all the Kool-Aid. You just take a sip and use 
> what's useful in your own special >>> context. Why anyone would take a 
> dislike to it is a mystery to me.
> 
> Beg to differ. If you explore the formal methods literature, you'll 
> easily find modelling techniques that UML does not properly embrace. I 
> dislike any formalism for systems engineering that is:
> 
> (a) not formally defined or has had formal definitions (clumsily) 
> retro-fitted, or
> 
> (b) forces upon me a verbosity that more mathematically-based techniques 
> do not.
> 
> ... and as regards "lunatic fringe" environments, it remains true to say 
> that if you don't know what you want:
> 
> (i)Â Â Â  you won't know when you've got it, or
> 
> (ii)Â Â  if you've belatedly decided what you do want, reworking what 
> you've got that isn't what you want does not exactly have an impressive 
> track record in systems engineering.
> 
> I may be wrong but I doubt that you'd find Sukhoi systems engineers 
> working the way the F35 systems engineers have. Russian engineering 
> seems to be predicated on a much more incremental philosophy ... which 
> is quite possibly why US astronauts have to go to Baikonur to thumb a 
> lift to the ISS.
> 
> O
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE



--
Les Chambers
les at chambers.com.au
+61 (0)412 648 992