I am testing bringing over a SysML V2 text syntax file from CATIA Magic.
It is throwing errors for all the views that have the form:
“DS_Views::SymbolicViews::gv”
I guess that “DS_” means “Dassault” and that it should be possible to replace “DS_Views” with another string that points to the SysIDE standard libraries…(?) I asked Claude Code to find the replacement string, but it went down a rabbit hole…
??
Thanks!
David Hetherington
Asatte Press, Inc
Could you give more information on what sort of error?
Syside considers DS_Views::SymbolicViews::gv a name like any other. It is referencing a package called DS_Views which might not be available in the paths Syside searches. In this case you would have to either provide that package (eg copy it into the same directory that your model file is in) or replace it (as you propose).
Without knowing more about what that view looks like or how it behaves, it’s not possible to figure out if we have a corresponding one, or how one would build it.
Can you provide a minimal reproducing example? A model that gives the error, and a screenshot of the view/diagram you expect?
Adam Layne, PhD
Adam,
Sure! The problem reproduces with the simplest example from the “Quick Start” sections for our “Simple SysML V2 for Beginners: Using…” book series. So far, we have quick starts available for CATIA Magic, Ansys SAM, and SysON.
The View is SysML V2’s “General View” and this is what the view should ideally look like (SVG from CATIA Magic):
Here are the three SysML V2 exports from the three tools.
Here is the error shown in VS Code with SysIDE Modeler.
Notice on the left that since all three versions are in the same folder, SysIDE has checked all three and objected to only the CATIA version. Ansys SAM did not provide any view information, but SysON did and apparently SysIDE likes the view as coded by SysON:
“view ‘Doorbell System Structure Overview’ : StandardViewDefinitions::GeneralView”
but does not like the view as coded by CATIA Magic:
"view ‘Doorbell System Structure Overview’ : DS_Views::SymbolicViews::gv:
Which I guess would answer my question: Just use a global search and replace to change the CATIA Magic notation to the SysON Notation?
(By the way, the Tom Sawyer render looks better after right-clicking and executing “Load all children as nested”)
(I would be happy to include the three SysML V2 files, but this tool told me "New users are only allowed to put 2 links in a post)
Thanks!
Your search-and-replace is right: in the standard library, the general view is declared as view def <gv> GeneralView; gv is its standard short name. DS_Views::SymbolicViews::gv is CATIA Magic wrapping the standard general view in its own package, so replacing it with StandardViewDefinitions::GeneralView doesn’t just silence the error, it points at the same view definition.
If you’d rather keep the CATIA exports untouched, an alternative is to put this file in the same folder:
package DS_Views {
package SymbolicViews {
alias gv for StandardViewDefinitions::GeneralView;
}
}
With that alias present, the CATIA export checks as-is. If other DS_Views names come up, each gets one more alias line in the same file.
Also, the reason the SysON form works is because it is referencing the Sysmlv2 standard library directly, like a tool should.
So… looking around:
Is this the correct reference for strings? I notice that the view definitions currently contain only doc elements… Is the Graphical working group going to add detail?
The visual appearance of the diagrams is defined in the Sysmlv2 spec, section 8.2.3. Whether that text, the text of the library’s doc string, or something else is treated as normative by a tool implementer varies. The appearance is not explicitly implementation defined, but the two textual sources have gaps and inconsistencies, so tools must invent some visual aspects.
It may be that CATIA uses the namespace DS_Views to distinguish their interpretation of that view from the standard one. You’d have to ask them.
Our tool (and apparently SysON) choose to use the standard library reference, and treat the fact that there may be small differences in how tools render this view as implicit. There should not be semantically meaningful differences between the ways tools render the standard library views, since the specification is (as far as I know) complete in this regard. If there is such a difference in Syside, please raise it with us as a bug.
I do not follow that Working Group, so I cannot answer with regard to that question. You might search in the working group’s files directly.