It is a misconception to think of a system as a thing. System is really more like a way of perceiving some thing, similar to the way a collection of things can be perceived as a “set” using the methods of set theory. The way we perceive a system is based on systems theory which is based on systems philosophy. www.systemsphilosophy.org/about-systems-philosophy In common speech, most people think of a system as a thing but that it is an illusion if you properly consider systems concepts from systems science and philosophy. Systems engineering has for a long time adopted the “common speech” about systems which has impeded progress in the world of SE practice. A group of INCOSE Fellows conducted a study a few years back to investigate this topic and proposed the new definition of system for INCOSE. www.incose.org/about-systems-engineering/system-and-se-definitions An enterprise is a human venture. In common speech, especially in the IT world, an enterprise is equated with a large organization that IT supports. They talk about “enterprise systems” which really confuses things; what they mean are IT systems and software that is used across the whole enterprise, eg travel accounting, payroll. So, an enterprise can be perceived “as a system” but that does not make the enterprise a system itself. When you look at an enterprise as a system you are forced to look at it through a systems lens. But if you instead look at an enterprise through a sociological or political or economic lens then you can see things that the systems viewpoint cannot perceive.

​@@ObjectMgmtGroup I believe we share a common understanding of the term "system" and recognize its frequent (mis)usage in certain communities. (By the way, I've been a member of INCOSE since 1987.) From an ontological perspective, anything that exhibits system behavior (at times, e.g., an engineered system while operating) must be included in our entity taxonomy. As a matter of worldview, I choose to exclude concepts, sets, and possible worlds from my hypothetical ontology. This leads me to define "system elements compositions" as a collection of material or immaterial entities that, at times, exhibit system behavior and assume a type of system role (e.g., operating system role, enabling system role, etc.). Moreover, my initial comment was about my objection to the de facto differentiation between Enterprise Architecture and System Architecture, as seen in ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 Software, Systems, and Enterprise - Architecture Description. If these terms refer to entities that can exhibit system behavior, why not use "Enterprise Architecture" or "Engineered System Architecture" as specializations of "System Architecture"?

@@ms1923 Interestingly if you analyse ontological use of language of entities you find often a singular entity never has the system word added to describe it. For example a human is not a system or referred as one in biology. Instead a human has systems, i.e. a collection of parts that deliver something of value to the whole, or a human is part of systems. Both cases it implies that most humans intuitively understand, even if they do not recognise it, that a system is more than one real or conceptual entities that are causally integrated and have some boundary. I also agree with your statement about EA and Engineered Systems both being specialisations of system architecture.

The SysML v2 diagrams are specified as views in the model which unlike SysML v1, are formally part of the model. There are several SysML v2 standard views such as a general view, an interconnection view, an action flow view, a state transition view, and others. The SysML v2 standard views can provide similar depictions as the SysML v1 diagram kinds (e.g., block definition diagram, internal block diagram, activity diagram, state machine diagram, etc.) SysML v2 provides additional capabilities to specify user defined views and select the kind of model elements that appear on a diagram and how they appear. The capability to specify user-defined views may take time for the tool vendors to fully support.

Regarding the model centralization - that was also solved in two different ways: either the broker (can be local, not on cloud) manages the "topics" like in Arvo(Kafka), or distributed like Protobuf (Google famous GRPC based protocol). The IDL can be shared by different languages applications... Is that used in DDS implementations?

did you watch the entire video, and how acquainted are you with SysML? just trying to understand how I should interpret your comment.

Powerpoint isn't a modeling language...it's a diagramming tool.

Your Lead Engineers should first learn the principles and concepts of Object-Orientation, UML and then SysML. I suspect that they have failed to do that. The origins of SysML are from Software Engineering, hence, why Software Engineers get it, because they were trained to use such specific and specialised notation for complex Systems Design. In my experience, the people who usually complain are non-Software Engineers because they lack the training which they're missing and should be seeking from their current employer. The answer is not to stick to .pptx!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@@WilbanksUSMC it's not even a diagramming tool, it's a presentation tool.

Yeah, engineering is tough. It's easier to avoid it by using powerpoint.

any thoughts? similar situation here

@ahmedhassan3276 Hello, sure! I estimate that, in the course where I was assigned this video, we students weren't meant to take away anything particularly specific. We subsequently took a small quiz on basic ideas of UML modeling, but not it didn't really test on anything unique to this video, which I consider to be its higher-level commentaries on UML's value in industry. (Btw, I somewhat hazily recall this lecture's content, as it was several months ago that I watched it.) I think our instructor's main intent in assigning us this video was to get us some exposure to the wide of UML diagrams. If I'm being petty, I think I could've skipped watching 80% of the video without any cost to my grade. Hope this is helpful somehow

Thanks for your time, helpful indeed.

The link to the slides were just added to the video description.

What’s the charge number for watching this? Jk great stuff