I see; this gives a new perspective to this discussion and increases my uneasiness; looks like the "holy wars of STEP" (NIST Special Publication 939) was going into a new round behind the scenes (or never stopped).
Does that mean we have to say goodbye to EXPRESS (i.e. it is optional as a description method)? Or is SysML just another method to specify Business object models (next to EXPRESS and UML)?
> an EXPRESS compiler used in the document production process
Do you mean the Eengine (written in Lisp)?
> Concerning "public relations":
e.g. the SysML v2 Submission Team (SST) did quite a good job in communicating their plans and the future direction of SysML; so even long before the standard is published I have a good grasp of what to expect, so also on the new text representation which will make MBSE much more efficient (like the advent of hardware description languages quickly made schematics obsolete for real world designs); this gives me enough time to prepare for the paradign shift (e.g. adapt my tools etc.). It is only to be suspected that STEP will still be based on the old SysML version with a different metamodel and no textual representation (i.e. the only "textual representation" is XMI or XSD).
I see no "holy war", certainly not like those in the past and I was there for them.
Business Object Models are deprecated in ISO 10303-1e3 and replaced with Domain Models specified in SysML (v1), the ISO 10303-242 one will look very similar to the current BOM and will have alternative EXPRESS and XSD representations. The SysML Canonical XMI files that are the specification of the standard will be provided with it, a user can use the tools I linked to in order to convert this to something that can be loaded into a SysML editor.
Someone using ISO 10303 EXPRESS models now can carry on using them in the future, there isn't some change they are forced to adopt. The only real user visible difference will be a more complete mapping between a Business Object Model/Domain Model and the traditional EXPRESS Application Protocols.
I am maintaining Express Engine and adding new features, I'm not the original author though.
I see; this gives a new perspective to this discussion and increases my uneasiness; looks like the "holy wars of STEP" (NIST Special Publication 939) was going into a new round behind the scenes (or never stopped).
Does that mean we have to say goodbye to EXPRESS (i.e. it is optional as a description method)? Or is SysML just another method to specify Business object models (next to EXPRESS and UML)?
> an EXPRESS compiler used in the document production process
Do you mean the Eengine (written in Lisp)?
> Concerning "public relations":
e.g. the SysML v2 Submission Team (SST) did quite a good job in communicating their plans and the future direction of SysML; so even long before the standard is published I have a good grasp of what to expect, so also on the new text representation which will make MBSE much more efficient (like the advent of hardware description languages quickly made schematics obsolete for real world designs); this gives me enough time to prepare for the paradign shift (e.g. adapt my tools etc.). It is only to be suspected that STEP will still be based on the old SysML version with a different metamodel and no textual representation (i.e. the only "textual representation" is XMI or XSD).