Skip to main content

A Systems Engineering Approach to the Development of a Domain-Specific Language for Functional Reference Architectures

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Systems Engineering in Context
  • 757 Accesses

Abstract

This paper introduces an approach for the development of a domain-specific language that can be used to improve consistency across different functional reference architectures within a particular domain. Currently, different models developed using the same generic modeling language (such as UML or SysML) use significantly different syntax and semantics to convey common concepts, even if the models use the same architectural framework (such as DoDAF or TOGAF), apply to the same domain, and are created by the same organization; this disparity leads to challenges in model interpretation and difficulties in comparing and analyzing models. The reverse is also true and can be even more problematic: The same terminology found in different models can refer to vastly different concepts, leading to the ambiguity and difficulty of distinguishing meaningful differences between aspects of different models. In situations where architecture consistency and interoperability are important, a domain-specific language (DSL) can provide concrete syntax, semantics, and well-formedness rules while introducing a minimal number of domain-specific concepts and remaining extensible. Applications of this can range from model-based systems engineering (MBSE) of proprietary systems within an organization to supporting open architectures across an entire industry. This paper demonstrates the development of a DSL via a systems engineering approach culminating in a custom UML profile with rules written in Object Constraint Language (OCL) to enable the creation of a conceptual avionics reference architecture, and the same approach can be applied across other domains.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Object Management Group. (2015). OMG unified modeling language TM (OMG UML), version 2.5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002870050092.

  2. Object Management Group. (2015). OMG systems modeling language (OMG SysMLâ„¢), version 1.4.

    Google Scholar 

  3. DoD Deputy Chief Information Officer. DoD architecture framework version 2.02. http://dodcio.defense.gov/Library/DoD-Architecture-Framework/

  4. The Open Group. TOGAF 9.1. http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf9-doc/arch/. Published 2011.

  5. Brimhall, E., Simko, R., Wise, R., Huggins, J., & Matteson, W. (2016). A systematic process for functional decomposition in the absence of formal requirements. 26th Annual INCOSE International Symposium, 1(26), 1204–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2016.00221.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. US Dept. of Defence/Office of the DoD CIO. (2010). Reference architecture description. http://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/DIEA/Ref_Archi_Description_Final_v1_18Jun10.pdf.

  7. Object Management Group. (2014). Object constraint language. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.9.852.

  8. INCOSE. (2015). Systems engineering handbook 4E. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Battigaglia, A., Brimhall, E., & Ogle, T. (2017). Conceptual data modeling for the functional decomposition of mission capabilities. INCOSE International Symposium, 27(1), 935–949. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2017.00404.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Truyen F. (2006). The fast guide to model driven architecture the basics of model driven architecture. Practice, 12. http://www.omg.org/mda/mda_files/Cephas_MDA_Fast_Guide.pdf

  11. Paige, R. F., Kolovos, D. S., & Polack, F. A. C. (2014). A tutorial on metamodelling for grammar researchers. Science of Computer Programming, 96(P4), 396–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2014.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Object Management Group. (2006). Meta-object facility specification (2.0) (pp. 1–2).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fowler M. (2004). UML distilled: A brief guide to the standard object modeling language. Pearson Paravia Bruno Mondad, 175. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2005.81.

  14. Department of Defense SMC. (2001). Systems engineering fundamentals. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2010.05.002

  15. Faisandier, A. (2013). Engineering and architecting multi-disciplinary systems. In Systems architecture and design (Vol. 3). Belberaud, France: Sinergy’Com.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Crawley, E., Cameron, B., & Selva, D. (2015). System architecture: Strategy and product development for complex systems (1st ed.). London: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kossiakoff, A., Sweet, W. N., Seymour, S. J., & Biemer, S. M. (2011). Systems engineering principles and practice (Vol. 102). Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2010.05.002

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. signal|Definition of signal in English by Oxford Dictionaries. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/signal#dictionary

  19. entity type|Microsoft Docs. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/data/adonet/entity-type

  20. The Open Group. (2014). Technical Standard for Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACETM), Edition 2.1. Burlington, MA, USA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Friedenthal S, Moore A, Steiner R. (2008). A practical guide to SysML. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374379-4.X0001-X

  22. No Magic, Inc. New and Noteworthy. https://www.nomagic.com/new-and-noteworthy-sections?start=200

  23. Karagiannis, D., & Kühn, H. (2002). Metamodelling platforms. In Proc Third International Conference EC-Web 2002 (p. 182). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45705-4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Team O 2 E. (2017). Meta-modeling and the mof meta-modeling and the OMG meta object facility (MOF).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Omg. (2012). Unified profile for DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM). Management (2.1).

    Google Scholar 

  26. OMG. (2012, March). Service oriented architecture modeling language (SoaML) specification. Language (Baltim) (pp. 1–144).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lafleur JM, Lantoine G, Hensley AL, et al. (2008). A systematic concept exploration methodology applied to venus in situ explorer (p. 404).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tzeng, G.-H., & Huang, J.-J. (2011). Multiple attribute decision making, methods and applications. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. IBM. (2010). Rational software architect version 8.0.0, UML profile-based integrated architecture (UPIA).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Consortium A. (2010). EAST-ADL domain model specification. Proj Deliv 1(218). http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:EAST-ADL+Domain+Model+Specification#0

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Wise .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Wise, R., Brimhall, E. (2019). A Systems Engineering Approach to the Development of a Domain-Specific Language for Functional Reference Architectures. In: Adams, S., Beling, P., Lambert, J., Scherer, W., Fleming, C. (eds) Systems Engineering in Context. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00114-8_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics