Telelogic Tau Systems Engineer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Telelogic Tau Systems Engineer Develop the business applications and services according to the planned architecture, incorporating both functional as well as presentation aspects of the offering. Create individual modules of software to integrate and re-use across many applications. Validate viability of requirements and application artifacts. Responsible for developing the business services according to the architecture model, concentrating on the functional aspects of the application as well as the presentation of the application artifacts. The System Engineer is also responsible for the creation of solution prototypes to validate ideas and business needs, and to generate a library of re-usable components and other assets that are designed for use in multiple applications. SysML Which UML notation will you be using? Do you The Systems Modeling have prior Recommended Language (Part 1) knowledge of Foundation Concepts UML? QQ220 Web-based (4 hours) Telelogic Training for UML: Foundation Concepts (Part 1) The Systems Modeling Language (Part 2) QQ230 No Diagram Basics Web-based (4 hours) QQ225 Web-based (4 hours) Telelogic Training for UML: Diagram Basics (Part 2) Introduction to Telelogic Tau for SysML QQ235 Web-based (4 hours) QQ120 Yes Classroom (3 days) Using UML2 for Model Driven Development QQ105 Classroom (4 days) Introduction to Telelogic Tau QQ115 Classroom (3 days) Additional Recommended Training CONTINUED on the following page... telelogic14.120908 CONTINUED from the previous page... Proceed to training path: Enterprise Architect for Solution Delivery Expanding Mechanisms in Telelogic Tau and a Look at the Additional Metamodel Recommended Training continued QD120 Web-based (1hour) Are you currently using DOORS for No Proceed to training path: Requirement DOORS Mgmt. Yes Telelogic DOORS and Telelogic Tau Integration QN105 Classroom (1 day) Are you currently Telelogic Tau and Synergy / using Synergy/CM Yes to manage CM Integration change? QS105 Classroom (1 day) No telelogic14a.120308 Proceed to training path: Telelogic Synergy or Proceed to training path: Rational ClearCase.

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Filling the Gap Between Business Process Modeling and Behavior Driven Development
Filling the Gap between Business Process Modeling and Behavior Driven Development Rogerio Atem de Carvalho Rodrigo Soares Manhães Fernando Luis de Carvalho e Silva Nucleo de Pesquisa em Sistemas de Informação (NSI), Instituto Federal Fluminense (IFF), Brazil {ratem, rmanhaes, [email protected]} 1. Introduction Behavior Driven Development (NORTH, 2006) is a specification technique that is growing in acceptance in the Agile methods communities. BDD allows to securely verify that all functional requirements were treated properly by source code, by connecting the textual description of these requirements to tests. On the other side, the Enterprise Information Systems (EIS) researchers and practitioners defends the use of Business Process Modeling (BPM) to, before defining any part of the system, perform the modeling of the system's underlying business process. Therefore, it can be stated that, in the case of EIS, functional requirements are obtained by identifying Use Cases from the business process models. The aim of this paper is, in a narrower perspective, to propose the use of Finite State Machines (FSM) to model business process and then connect them to the BDD machinery, thus driving better quality for EIS. In a broader perspective, this article aims to provoke a discussion on the mapping of the various BPM notations, since there isn't a real standard for business process modeling (Moller et al., 2007), to BDD. Firstly a historical perspective of the evolution of previous proposals from which this one emerged will be presented, and then the reasons to change from Model Driven Development (MDD) to BDD will be presented also in a historical perspective.
[Show full text]
Sysml Distilled: a Brief Guide to the Systems Modeling Language
ptg11539604 Praise for SysML Distilled “In keeping with the outstanding tradition of Addison-Wesley’s techni- cal publications, Lenny Delligatti’s SysML Distilled does not disappoint. Lenny has done a masterful job of capturing the spirit of OMG SysML as a practical, standards-based modeling language to help systems engi- neers address growing system complexity. This book is loaded with matter-of-fact insights, starting with basic MBSE concepts to distin- guishing the subtle differences between use cases and scenarios to illu- mination on namespaces and SysML packages, and even speaks to some of the more esoteric SysML semantics such as token flows.” — Jeff Estefan, Principal Engineer, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory “The power of a modeling language, such as SysML, is that it facilitates communication not only within systems engineering but across disci- plines and across the development life cycle. Many languages have the ptg11539604 potential to increase communication, but without an effective guide, they can fall short of that objective. In SysML Distilled, Lenny Delligatti combines just the right amount of technology with a common-sense approach to utilizing SysML toward achieving that communication. Having worked in systems and software engineering across many do- mains for the last 30 years, and having taught computer languages, UML, and SysML to many organizations and within the college setting, I find Lenny’s book an invaluable resource. He presents the concepts clearly and provides useful and pragmatic examples to get you off the ground quickly and enables you to be an effective modeler.” — Thomas W. Fargnoli, Lead Member of the Engineering Staff, Lockheed Martin “This book provides an excellent introduction to SysML.
[Show full text]
Matters of (Meta-) Modeling
Appeared in the Journal on Software and Systems Modeling, Volume 5, Number 4, pp. 369-385, December 2006 Matters of (Meta-) Modeling Thomas Kuh¨ ne Darmstadt University of Technology, Darmstadt, Germany e-mail: [email protected] Abstract With the recent trend to model driven engineering ontologies for the basic terms of their discipline, any com- a common understanding of basic notions such as “model” munication may create the illusion of agreement where there and “metamodel” becomes a pivotal issue. Even though these is none, i.e., unnoticed misunderstandings, and raise barriers notions have been in widespread use for quite a while, there of communication where they are just accidental. is still little consensus about when exactly it is appropriate In the following we will focus on the term “model” in the to use them. The aim of this article is to start establishing a context of model driven engineering. Our models are thus all consensus about generally acceptable terminology. Its main language-based in nature, unlike, e.g., physical scale models contributions are the distinction between two fundamental- and they describe something as opposed to models in mathe- ly different kinds of model roles, i.e. “token model” versus matics which are understood as interpretations of a theory [3]. “type model”1, a formal notion of “metaness”, and the consi- In an attempt to deﬁne the scope of the notion “model” we deration of “generalization” as yet another basic relationship should consider how it has been traditionally used in softwa- between models. In particular, the recognition of the funda- re engineering.
[Show full text]
Introduction to Systems Modeling Languages
Fundamentals of Systems Engineering Prof. Olivier L. de Weck, Mark Chodas, Narek Shougarian Session 3 System Modeling Languages 1 Reminder: A1 is due today ! 2 3 Overview Why Systems Modeling Languages? Ontology, Semantics and Syntax OPM – Object Process Methodology SySML – Systems Modeling Language Modelica What does it mean for Systems Engineering of today and tomorrow (MBSE)? 4 Exercise: Describe the “Mr. Sticky” System Work with a partner (5 min) Use your webex notepad/white board I will call on you randomly We will compare across student teams © source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/. 5 Why Systems Modeling Languages? Means for describing artifacts are traditionally as follows: Natural Language (English, French etc….) Graphical (Sketches and Drawings) These then typically get aggregated in “documents” Examples: Requirements Document, Drawing Package Technical Data Package (TDP) should contain all info needed to build and operate system Advantages of allowing an arbitrary description: Familiarity to creator of description Not-confining, promotes creativity Disadvantages of allowing an arbitrary description: Room for ambiguous interpretations and errors Difficult to update if there are changes Handoffs between SE lifecycle phases are discontinuous Uneven level of abstraction Large volume of information that exceeds human cognitive bandwidth Etc…. 6 System Modeling Languages Past efforts
[Show full text]
Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize
Using DOORS & Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes Bob Sherman - [email protected] [email protected] Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes - v1.0 © 2005 Galactic Solutions Group LLC – Authors: Bob Sherman ([email protected]), [email protected] 1 © Telelogic AB Agenda • The Unmet Need • The Solution – Strategy: Business Driven Application Lifecycle – Tactics: Business Modeling via DOORS & VISIO – Tactics: DOORS/VISIO Integration • Case Study Results Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes - v1.0 © 2005 Galactic Solutions Group LLC – Authors: Bob Sherman ([email protected]), [email protected] 2 © Telelogic AB Chronic IT Project Problems Top IT Project Problems • User/Stakeholder Engagement Outages • Unclear Objectives • Incomplete or Changing Requirements *Standish Group Chaos Studies Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes - v1.0 © 2005 Galactic Solutions Group LLC – Authors: Bob Sherman ([email protected]), [email protected] 3 © Telelogic AB Chronic IT Project Problems Rework • 35-65% of project budget *Standish Group spent on rework. • ~50% of rework is due to requirements errors * IEEE & University of Southern California Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes - v1.0 © 2005 Galactic Solutions Group LLC – Authors:
[Show full text]
Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes
Using Telelogic DOORS and Microsoft Visio to Model and Visualize Complex Business Processes “The Business Driven Application Lifecycle” Bob Sherman Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals [email protected] Michael Sutherland Galactic Solutions Group, LLC [email protected] Prepared for the Telelogic 2005 User Group Conference, Americas & Asia/Pacific http://www.telelogic.com/news/usergroup/us2005/index.cfm 24 October 2005 Abstract: The fact that most Information Technology (IT) projects fail as a result of requirements management problems is common knowledge. What is not commonly recognized is that the widely haled “use case” and Object Oriented Analysis and Design (OOAD) phenomenon have resulted in little (if any) abatement of IT project failures. In fact, ten years after the advent of these methods, every major IT industry research group remains aligned on the fact that these projects are still failing at an alarming rate (less than a 30% success rate). Ironically, the popularity of use case and OOAD (e.g. UML) methods may be doing more harm than good by diverting our attention away from addressing the real root cause of IT project failures (when you have a new hammer, everything looks like a nail). This paper asserts that, the real root cause of IT project failures centers around the failure to map requirements to an accurate, precise, comprehensive, optimized business model. This argument will be supported by a using a brief recap of the history of use case and OOAD methods to identify differences between the problems these methods were intended to address and the challenges of today’s IT projects.
[Show full text]
Integration of Model-Based Systems Engineering and Virtual Engineering Tools for Detailed Design
Scholars' Mine Masters Theses Student Theses and Dissertations Spring 2011 Integration of model-based systems engineering and virtual engineering tools for detailed design Akshay Kande Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses Part of the Systems Engineering Commons Department: Recommended Citation Kande, Akshay, "Integration of model-based systems engineering and virtual engineering tools for detailed design" (2011). Masters Theses. 5155. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/masters_theses/5155 This thesis is brought to you by Scholars' Mine, a service of the Missouri S&T Library and Learning Resources. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INTEGRATION OF MODEL-BASED SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND VIRTUAL ENGINEERING TOOLS FOR DETAILED DESIGN by AKSHA Y KANDE A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the MISSOURI UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE IN SYSTEMS ENGINEERING 2011 Approved by Steve Corns, Advisor Cihan Dagli Scott Grasman © 2011 Akshay Kande All Rights Reserved 111 ABSTRACT Design and development of a system can be viewed as a process of transferring and transforming data using a set of tools that form the system's development environment. Conversion of the systems engineering data into useful information is one of the prime objectives of the tools used in the process. With complex systems, the objective is further augmented with a need to represent the information in an accessible and comprehensible manner.
[Show full text]
System-Of-Systems Approach for Integrated Energy Systems
A System-of-Systems Approach for Integrated Energy Systems Modeling and Simulation Preprint Saurabh Mittal, Mark Ruth, Annabelle Pratt, Monte Lunacek, Dheepak Krishnamurthy, and Wesley Jones National Renewable Energy Laboratory Presented at the Society for Modeling & Simulation International Summer Simulation Multi-Conference Chicago, Illinois July 26–29, 2015 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. Conference Paper NREL/CP-2C00-64045 August 2015 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (Alliance), a contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Accordingly, the US Government and Alliance retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof.
[Show full text]
Complexity Evaluation with Business Process Modeling and Simulation
Complexity Evaluation with Business Process Modeling and Simulation Krishan Chand and Muthu Ramachandran School of Computing, Creative Technologies and Engineering, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, U.K. Keywords: Business Process Modeling, BPMN, Simulation, Complexity. Abstract: To stay in the competition and to make a stand in the market, companies have to make the quick changes. Business Process Modelling (BPM) has made an impact in the respect to capture the process and to make the changes accordingly for improvement in business operations. Modeling and simulation is the process of making a process simple to reduce complexity. However, modellers or researchers still making the complex models. Modeling and simulation are the areas which need to be addressed, despite only a few researchers worked in the respective areas of modelling and simulation. The paper addresses the complexity issue of cloud performance criteria of time and cost. To this end, this paper has evaluated the domain of financial services in the cloud with Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) and simulation. Two different scenarios have been created to demonstrate the result of performance complexity of cloud services. Finally, the conclusion has been derived to help and guide further research. 1 INTRODUCTION of a process directed to make it with fewer efforts, accordingly to ease the complexity of the business Due to its existence importance not because of process and to make it simple and understanding. However, the main objective of the process modeller descriptive nature of the process, but also the is to make the process understanding and to reduce characteristics representation for the activities such as business process improvement, business process the complexity in the practical world, are designing the complex models (Henriksen, 2008; Chwif et al., re-engineering and process standardization, business 2000).
[Show full text]
Early Verification and Validation in Model-Based Design
® ® Early Verification and Validation in Model-Based Design Amory Wakefield Technical Marketing The MathWorks © 2008 TheMathWorks, Inc. ® ® Introductions I spend most of my time: A. Creating specifications and requirements (systems and software) B. Implementation based on specification and requirements created by somebody else (generating, writing, deploying, debugging code) C. Both D. None of the above 2 ® ® Address the Entire Development Process RequirementsRequirements Design System V&V Requirements Validation Environment Robustness Testing Modeling Standards Checking Physical Components Component V&V Algorithms Design Verification Model Testing G e H t e Coverage and Test Generation G a a n e nd r e n - e r Property Proving e n a ra t te e e G Code Verification Digital Embedded Code Correctness Electronics Software Processor-In-The Loop Testing VHDL, Verilog C, C++ FPGA ASIC MCU DSP Integration Testing Software Integration Testing Integration Hardware-in-the-Loop Testing Hardware Connectivity Implement 3 ® ® Methods for Verification and Validation Traceability Requirements to model and code Model to code Modeling and Coding Standards Modeling standards checking Coding standards checking Testing Model testing in simulation Processor-in-the-loop Proving Proving design properties Proving code correctness 4 ® ® Increasing Confidence in Your Designs Confidence Traceability Modeling and Coding Model and Code Proving Design Standards Checking Testing Properties and Code Correctness Verification Method 5 ® ® Traceability System V&V Comp. V&V Integration Functional Requirements Design Environment Physical Components Tracing RequirementsÙModel Simulink Verification and Validation Algorithms H G e Tracing ModelÙSource Code G an t e e d a n ne - r e ra e r t n a e t Real-Time Workshop Embedded Coder e e G Digital Embedded Electronics Software Tracing RequirementsÙSource Code VHDL, Verilog C, C++ Simulink Verification and Validation FPGA ASIC MCU DSP Integration Implement 6 ® ® Tracing RequirementsÙModel System V&V Comp.
[Show full text]
Case No COMP/M.4747 Œ IBM / TELELOGIC REGULATION (EC)
EN This text is made available for information purposes only. A summary of this decision is published in all Community languages in the Official Journal of the European Union. Case No COMP/M.4747 – IBM / TELELOGIC Only the English text is authentic. REGULATION (EC) No 139/2004 MERGER PROCEDURE Article 8(1) Date: 05/03/2008 Brussels, 05/03/2008 C(2008) 823 final PUBLIC VERSION COMMISSION DECISION of 05/03/2008 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.4747 - IBM/ TELELOGIC) COMMISSION DECISION of 05/03/2008 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.4747 - IBM/ TELELOGIC) (Only the English text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 57 thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings1, and in particular Article 8(1) thereof, Having regard to the Commission's decision of 3 October 2007 to initiate proceedings in this case, After consulting the Advisory Committee on Concentrations2, Having regard to the final report of the Hearing Officer in this case3, Whereas: 1 OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 2 OJ C ...,...200. , p.... 3 OJ C ...,...200. , p.... 2 I. INTRODUCTION 1. On 29 August 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 ("the Merger Regulation") by which the undertaking International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM", USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Telelogic AB ("Telelogic", Sweden) by way of a public bid which was announced on 11 June 2007.
[Show full text]
Real Time UML
Fr 5 January 22th-26th, 2007, Munich/Germany Real Time UML Bruce Powel Douglass Organized by: Lindlaustr. 2c, 53842 Troisdorf, Tel.: +49 (0)2241 2341-100, Fax.: +49 (0)2241 2341-199 www.oopconference.com RealReal--TimeTime UMLUML Bruce Powel Douglass, PhD Chief Evangelist Telelogic Systems and Software Modeling Division www.telelogic.com/modeling groups.yahoo.com/group/RT-UML 1 Real-Time UML © Telelogic AB Basics of UML • What is UML? – How do we capture requirements using UML? – How do we describe structure using UML? – How do we model communication using UML? – How do we describe behavior using UML? • The “Real-Time UML” Profile • The Harmony Process 2 Real-Time UML © Telelogic AB What is UML? 3 Real-Time UML © Telelogic AB What is UML? • Unified Modeling Language • Comprehensive full life-cycle 3rd Generation modeling language – Standardized in 1997 by the OMG – Created by a consortium of 12 companies from various domains – Telelogic/I-Logix a key contributor to the UML including the definition of behavioral modeling • Incorporates state of the art Software and Systems A&D concepts • Matches the growing complexity of real-time systems – Large scale systems, Networking, Web enabling, Data management • Extensible and configurable • Unprecedented inter-disciplinary market penetration – Used for both software and systems engineering • UML 2.0 is latest version (2.1 in process…) 4 Real-Time UML © Telelogic AB UML supports Key Technologies for Development Iterative Development Real-Time Frameworks Visual Modeling Automated Requirements-
[Show full text]