1

From my understanding, SysML 1.4 allows to have itemFlows between Block as well as Part Here is an excerpt from pag 75 of the SysML 1.4 specs enter image description here

which shows that it is possible to have itemFlow(s) between Blocks.

I am not sure about the semantic of this. For example, referring to the excerpt from the SysML 1.4 specs, does it mean that every instance of Engine block requires an "itemFlow" connection to an instance of a Transmission block and that a Torque will flow between every Instance of Engine block to the associated instance of Transmission Block?

Irr
  • 656
  • 1
  • 9
  • 19

2 Answers2

0

Yes, of course. At least if the Engine/Transmission are blocks instantiated from this model.

You are free to define other Engines/Transmissions where not Torque is transported (e.g. if you see a copper cable as transmission where current is transported rather than torque).

An item flow in general tells that "something physical" is moved from source to target. The above transports torque. You can also transport current, gas, fluid, etc. Even abstract information can be transported, though SysML is designed to map physical objects, rather than abstract things (where UML will be sufficient).

qwerty_so
  • 35,448
  • 8
  • 62
  • 86
0

There is an association between Engine and Transmission. Since we don't see any multiplicity, we may assume that it is 1. That means every Engine instance must be linked to a Transmission instance and vice versa. This is not realistic, but hey, who wants models of reality ;-). In the real world the multiplicity is 0..1.

The item flow just says, that Torque can potentially flow across a link between the two instances.

By the way: This is also not realistic, since torque is the potential to flow, not the item flowing. The item is rather angular momentum. For reasons I don't understand, the potential (e.g. Torque) or the rate (e.g. Current) is often used in place of the item that is flowing in reality.

Axel Scheithauer
  • 2,758
  • 5
  • 13