<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear SEA-SA RASDS colleagues,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have spent some time in the last month considering just how best to integrate the new Physical / Structural viewpoint, and the other related viewpoints with physical attributes: thermal, propulsion, electrical, magnetic, radiation, etc.
These are all specialized domains with their own well-established methods for representing systems and components, and the attributes and configurations that are relevant for each.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I did do some research to see if there were any unifying themes or techniques, but aside from finite element analysis being applied for structural analysis, heat transfer, fluid flow, mass transport, and electromagnetic potential there
does not appear to be a common approach. I have come to the conclusion that there is not much value to be gained, from a systems architecture point of view, in trying to accommodate these specialized aspects of mechanical and electrical analyses into the
systems architecture directly. These are specialized technical fields with their own detailed engineering analyses and representations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The viability of this is, of course, open to discussion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have added a few pages to the body of the ppt file, pgs 55-60 that attempt to capture what might be possible to provide a relationship to the viewpoints and objects we can accommodate, and to provide a way, via a shared set of information
objects and attributes, to capture the relationships to these other physical aspects. I think this is workable, and valuable, but I question whether we can push it much further than this. There are other changes in this deck that have not yet been reviewed.
This includes a limited amount of treatment of the Operations Viewpoint, pgs 50-53, which have not yet had all of Costin’s materials added, and some new Enterprise Viewpoint materials, pgs 40-44 that also need review, and likely also expansion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">See you all tomorrow AM (my time).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers, Peter<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>