![]() |
Telelogic Rhapsody (steve huntington) | ![]() |
Topic Title: On software systems documentation and Rhapsody Systems Designer Topic Summary: Created On: 17-Aug-2007 13:27 Status: Read Only |
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch |
![]() |
![]()
|
![]() |
|
Our implementation will be carried out 100% in Simulink, with no UML code generation involved. However, we like the idea of using SysML to document the architecture in conjunction with a more leightweight version of Rhapsody such as Rhapsody Systems Designer
1. I'm coming from a software world where I'm used to seeing class in a diagram as a class in an OO language, consequently, I am trying to understand SysML within software Systems Engineering now. It would have been nice if Rhapsody could set up our initial simulink blocks, but Rhapsody only supports the reverse for now. 2. Was the intent of a SysML block to be a collection of artifacts, for example in our case a work package (essentially a folder in our toolset containing the simulink model, HMI xml files, and other data in xml format)? Because my work is systems level, maybe I do not need to be as specific. 3. Because the Simulink models ultimately implement the architecture, do I link to the architecture from Simulink, of which the architecture then links to the software requirements? If this is the case, and I like this method of Implementation/Detailed Design (Simulink ) -> Architecture Design (Rhapsody) -> Requirements (DOORS), is there a way to do this in Gateway? Regardless, the end-goal is the following: to produce a document that our software team can use, and that other stakeholders can constantly review. I would like to make this document as value-added as possible. |
|
![]() |
FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2009 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.