ISSUE: SysMLv2.0 spec: States: Inconsistent concerning use of entry action and notation for a "start state" in examples (cf. p.115)

This page identifies a possible issue, inconsistency, concern, error, or bug!

One of the ways Webel IT Australia helps promote tools, technologies, and languages is by donating a lot of time identifying, tracking, and reporting potential issues, in order to help vendors and developers improve the tools and technologies. In some cases, we also offer workarounds and advice for users. All issues tracked on our public site are offered most constructively and with sincerest gratitude to the tool vendors and technology developers.

DISCLAIMER: Vendors do not officially endorse issue analysis by Webel IT Australia.

Icon class

icon_class

far fa-sticky-note

icon_class_computed

far fa-sticky-note

Note kind

ISSUE

Policy level

INFORMATIVE

Specification keywords

SysMLv2

SysMLv2 keywords

State

entry

start

Keywords

Click on the image to view it full size

Refer to p.115 of:

OMG Systems Modeling Language TM (SysML®) Version 2.0 formal/2025-09-03 (Sep 2025)

2026-05-15 UPDATE: After more analysis Webel IT has concluded that the spec has multiple inconsistent examples. The Webel SysMLv2 course has a series of slides investigating the issue and suggesting Just use start:stateAction. It is probably NOT a tool issue:

Visit also: GOTCHA: Cameo 2026x: SysMLv2 Plugin: A "transition" from an empty entry entry is interpreted (consistently) as a succession not a transition (LIKELY A SPEC EXAMPLES ISSUE). WORKAROUND: Use start:stateAction

Relates to

Related notes

Related notes (backlinks)

Related snippets (extracts)

Visit also

OMG Systems Modeling Language TM (SysML®) Version 2.0 formal/2025-09-03 (Sep 2025)

Visit also (backlinks)

Flags