Welcome to Telelogic Product Support
  Home Downloads Knowledgebase Case Tracking Licensing Help Telelogic Passport
Telelogic Rhapsody (steve huntington)
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Link the Simulink model to the Rhapsody block or to the DOORS requirement, or both?
Topic Summary:
Created On: 3-Aug-2007 11:43
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Subscribe to this topic Subscribe to this topic
E-mail this topic to someone. E-mail this topic
Bookmark this topic Bookmark this topic
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 3-Aug-2007 11:43
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


carlos ramos

Posts: 17
Joined: 1-Feb-2007

I saw once in a webinar on requirements management and Rhapsody Gateway that a simulink block was linked to the requirements, however, there was also a block in Rhapsody that was linked to the same requirement as well. Does this imply that a link should be established from the Simulink block to the DOORS requirement, and then a separate link from the Rhapsody block to the DOORS requirement even if both blocks are the same? This seems like a duplicate effort, unless I'm missing something here. Thanks for the help.
Report this to a Moderator Report this to a Moderator
 8-Aug-2007 07:44
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Charlie Lane

Posts: 86
Joined: 16-Sep-2005

Does it maybe come down to what you are using Gateway for?
If you are aiming to demonstrate simply that all the high-level requirements have been satisfied, then having two links to it does no more than one (it's satisfied either way).
Or, if you are using the Gateway project configuration to specify the traceability tree, you may wish to set it up to represent "requirements need to be satisfied by something in the Rhapsody model and something in the Simulink model" (see in the Gateway user manual under "Document covered by combination of several others", though I haven't tried this personally).
Or, if you want to show that some of the source requirements need to be satisfied by both Rhapsody and Simulink elements, but other source requirements only need be satisfied by Rhapsody elements, another way of doing this is to have a requirement object in the Rhapsody model that states what the Simulink block is to do, then have the Simulink block traceability to the requirement object in Rhapsody rather than to the source requirement (each such decomposed requirement is then linked in Rhapsody to the source requirement by a decomposition link).
Or, if you are going to do impact analysis of changes in the source requirements, it may be useful to have traceability links from all parts of the design that are involved in satisfying the requirement.

Rather a woolly answer, sorry, hope it helps a little.
Report this to a Moderator Report this to a Moderator
 14-Aug-2007 13:54
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


carlos ramos

Posts: 17
Joined: 1-Feb-2007

Interesting. I understand the three perspectives you gave me, however, I'm trying to understand which fits my situation. Here is the scenario:

We have created the architecture in Rhapsody. Every block however will be implemented in Simulink. In a traditional process, the idea would be that requirements go to design (Rhapsody), then the implementation is carried out in Simulink. So we would like to start at requirements, trace down to the architecture design, then trace further down to the Simulink blocks in a top-down fashion. However, I have found no way for a Simulink block (especially from within Simulink) to link to the design model in Rhapsody. Simulink will only link to DOORS, Word, or text. How can I establish that link from Simulink (the implementation) to Rhapsody (the architecture design)?
Report this to a Moderator Report this to a Moderator
 15-Aug-2007 12:25
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Charlie Lane

Posts: 86
Joined: 16-Sep-2005

Hi again, I don't have Simulink on this PC, so cannot actually try to see where the problem is -- hopefully someone else can help there.

But to clarify: As I understand it, you have a Gateway configuration something like the attached picture (i.e. Rhapsody design satisfying source requirements, Simulink implementation satisfying Rhapsody design)?

Is the problem perhaps that the things that Simulink can satisfy are requirement objects --- do you have requirements in your Rhapsody design?
Presumably if you have requirements in the Rhapsody design, you could create traceability within Gateway between Simulink and Rhapsody?
If you don't have requirements in the Rhapsody design, should you be creating them (or mangle the .types file so that the Simulink blocks are treated as requirements)?

Sorry I can't be more help. Regards, Charlie.
Report this to a Moderator Report this to a Moderator
 16-Aug-2007 14:26
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


carlos ramos

Posts: 17
Joined: 1-Feb-2007

The image you attached is precisely what I want to accomplish. HOwever, from inside Simulink, you can only trace to a DOORS module (or word and text). I wonder,will it work by tracing to the Rhapsody DOORS module, which is essentially the same as the Rhapsody SysML model?
Report this to a Moderator Report this to a Moderator
Statistics
20925 users are registered to the Telelogic Rhapsody forum.
There are currently 1 users logged in.
You have posted 0 messages to this forum. 0 overall.

FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2009 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.