Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Paolo F Cantoni

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 404
1
General Board / Re: Aris vs EA for Process Modelling
« on: Today at 10:11:13 am »
Hi Paolo where can I learn more about this clarification service? Sounds interesting!

[SNIP]

Quote
Our EA Organisation now offers a "Clarification Service" to help users agree what they are talking about.  It's based on our Onto-Terminological Modelling and the few User Departments that have used it have been very pleased with the results.

Paolo
Hi Richard,

It's not rocket science, we use a controlled language. Based on our Onto-Terminological model where we relate terms and concepts, terms and terms and concepts and concepts.  We have also developed some guidelines/rules about how language needs to work in order to reduce confusion.  As a result, we've created some special ontological relationships.  But, basically, it's sitting in on discussions and listening to how people are miscommunicating and helping sort it out when we see it.  We also hold facilitated sessions to explore the domain, principally from a data-oriented viewpoint.

PM me if you want to know more.

2
General Board / Re: Aris vs EA for Process Modelling
« on: April 26, 2018, 05:06:32 pm »
Quote
So I would focus efforts on getting maximum clarity on what your client wants to achieve and how they want to achieve it - then the tool choice should be straightforward.

Yeah... Good luck with that. ;)

/Uffe
Our EA Organisation now offers a "Clarification Service" to help users agree what they are talking about.  It's based on our Onto-Terminological Modelling and the few User Departments that have used it have been very pleased with the results.

Paolo

3
Bugs and Issues / Re: Time-aware models: revert clone
« on: April 26, 2018, 04:59:13 pm »
Notwithstanding that the cloning mechanism is for our use (notionally), I could practice what I preach and open up a "crowd-sourced" requirements and use case thread - to help us specify what the mechanism should do and how it should behave.

I'm in!

/Uffe
OK, I'm "up to my neck in muck and bullets" right now, but I'll try to get something started soon.

If you like, PM me some requirements as you see them.

Paolo

4
General Board / Re: Excel Import
« on: April 26, 2018, 04:49:23 pm »
Hi Takeshi,

That's a really nice EA hint! I shall remember it.

Thanks,
Guillaume
+1!

Paolo

5
Bugs and Issues / Re: Time-aware models: revert clone
« on: April 24, 2018, 09:54:58 am »
Very good perspectives and analysis in this thread. This is the kind of discussion that could have given a perfect spec for the new feature.
What ask the users what they want in a feature BEFORE you build it?  To paraphrase the ".Net Rocks" guys, "That's crazy talk!"

One of our senior architects was bemoaning a new "feature" that had been developed by one of our manufacturers on one of our production applications. "They build what they want to build and then wonder why it doesn't suit our needs.  They never asked anybody".

It seems to be an occupational hazard.

For our part, we have decided (and here I don't mean the "royal" we, I mean our Modeling Review Board) that this year we need to implement a proper cloning mechanism to help us keep track of what's going on in our enterprise-wide repository.  So given Sparx has developed a "cloning" mechanism of sorts, we need to be as compatible as we can with that.  Based on previous experience,  the feature design is not going to change significantly in the next little while.

Notwithstanding that the cloning mechanism is for our use (notionally), I could practice what I preach and open up a "crowd-sourced" requirements and use case thread - to help us specify what the mechanism should do and how it should behave.

Thoughts?
Paolo

6
Bugs and Issues / Re: Time-aware models: revert clone
« on: April 23, 2018, 04:49:34 pm »
Serious discussion! but just wondering how about a baseline of the source and the target packages before cloning, and use that to revert back? ideally automated, but in absence of which can it be a manual effort?
Hi Nizam,

Unfortunately, at enterprise scale, this is unviable.  Anyway, as Uffe has said, it's a diagram, not package problem.  One way would be to make a copy of the diagram before cloning and then revert to the saved copy - if it didn't go correctly.  The underlying issue of what "Clone to NEW version" means needs to be clarified first.

In addition to the problem Uffe has mentioned, it could (and we have) be argued that if you change the clone on one diagram in a version branch, you should change the clone in ALL (or at least be given the option to select which diagrams should also be changed) the diagrams in the version branch.

Paolo

7
Bugs and Issues / Re: Time-aware models: revert clone
« on: April 23, 2018, 12:44:44 pm »
Ah, but it does -- I'm reverting to the previous version. I'm not talking about parallel branches here, just a basic "undo check-out" if you will, of a single element.

The element I'm reverting has the special-dodgy-kludgy trace connector to its predecessor. Which diagrams that predecessor is in is easily checked, so restoring those occurrences to the cloned diagrams (where the predecessor has been replaced by the clone) should be no harder when reverting than when cloning the diagram in the first place.

I'm fully prepared to accept that you can't revert an element which has already been cloned in turn (ie has an inbound special-dodgy-kludgy trace relationship), but you should be able to back up from the head.

Amirite?


/Uffe
Hi Uffe,
I wasn't clear enough.  My point applies to BOTH sequential and parallel streams.  Each clone knows the predecessor clone, but NOT which version it was cloned from!

Say I have versions 1 to 5 in the model and the diagram I am using to clone has #2.  When I say clone to a new version it will place #5 on the diagram.

Now it doesn't know it came from #2 - so it can't revert to #2.  I'm not sure that reverting to #4 is what you're after.

Is that clearer?

Paolo

8
Bugs and Issues / Re: V14RC: [Alt+Z] functionality Gone!
« on: April 20, 2018, 10:36:36 am »
It still (mostly) works for me, although sometimes the ribbon appears to eat the combination.
Yes, that's the problem.  For me, it doesn't seem to work at all so far.  I'll reboot at some time and confirm the problem is still there. I'm on Windows 7.

Paolo

9
Oh, and I found that if you've got the situation I had above, then select the non-cloned package in the cloned diagram and hit Clone Element as New Version, the old package is replaced by the new one in the diagram, and subsequently, the Clone Element menu item is greyed out.

FWIW.

/Uffe
As per my previous comments in the other TAM posts, I suspect it's working correctly.  Since the requirement for the initial clone of the diagram is to NOT clone any vertex, it is incumbent upon the user to determine which vertices to clone (including folders).

There is some "method in their madness".

Paolo

10
Uffe,

I had a look at the time aware modelling feature and decided that it is not useful for me or my clients.
It really quickly becomes a mix of elements from different versions, all linked to each other.
Definitely not how I would design a feature like that.

Geert
Geert, Any cloning system will end up as a "mix of elements from different versions".  The trick is how to manage it properly.  We're looking at implementing our own cloning system (hopefully compatible with Sparx's) to do it a bit better.

Paolo

11
Bugs and Issues / Re: Time-aware models: revert clone
« on: April 20, 2018, 10:14:32 am »
Hi boys & girls,

I can't find a function to revert a cloned element in a diagram, in other words, destroy the cloned element and replace it in the diagram with the original.

Isn't there one?


/Uffe
As far as I'm aware there's not.  I can also tell you why (I think).  In my topic on TAM where I discuss sequential versus parallel cloning; when you clone an early version which has subsequent versions, you get the latest version ONLY.  The cloned element has NO memory of where it was cloned from and so you can't revert.  It doesn't know which version to revert to.

Paolo

12
Bugs and Issues / Re: Time-aware MDG Technology models
« on: April 20, 2018, 10:10:52 am »
... No it won't, and no it won't.

/U
Thanks for the "heads up".

As per my reply to the Import/Export topic, I suspect it's working correctly (at present).  I'll have a look (when I get a minute or two) to better understand your point.

Paolo

13
Bugs and Issues / Re: Import/export of time-aware models
« on: April 20, 2018, 10:02:17 am »
Hi Uffe,

Like you, having delved into TAM, I'm a bit concerned about some of the current functionality (and more particularly, the UI).

However, from my (still limited) knowledge of TAM, the export is working correctly.  The uncloned vertices are (and probably should) NOT part of the versioned folder.  Consequently, the export should be the same as for a non-TAM package.  I thought these days, the export exported "stubs" for the out-of-branch vertices.  If you're saying the stubs are missing, then that's a bug.

The problem (as I see it) with what you are asking is that (as I said above) the uncloned vertices are in a different structure.  If you force EA to export them as part of this structure, you are exporting a corrupted model.  However, that having been said, there may be use cases where such an export is useful.  Can you elaborate on yours?

Paolo

14
Bugs and Issues / Re: Data Model - bug on saving the diagram
« on: April 20, 2018, 09:55:56 am »
Still a problem 8 years later in 13.5.

Working on a saved diagram, deleting and recreating the association in between the tables, with no other changes, causes the diagram to be flagged as needing saved. Trying to close the diagram without saving still results in the FK constraint being deleted. The diagram still shows the correct association link in between the tables with all of the correct labels, but without the constraint in place.
Hi lweath,

I'm not sure it's a bug (in Sparx's view).  As part of standard diagram processing, if you don't a diagram on closing with a NEW vertex or arc, EA assumes that you didn't want them and will purge them from the model.

In your case deleting (I assume yo9u mean purging from the model - not just hiding on the diagram) and creating the NEW arc will "dirty" the diagram.  Thus, it needs to be saved.  In the case of a Foreign Key Constraint, the issue is more complicated because you (effectively) have a two-step process.  Have you confirmed that saving the "dirty" diagram correctly saves the FK Constraint?

I have some sympathy for Sparx's view but the EAUI could have been better framed to alert users to what may happen.

Paolo

15
Paolo,

As an alternative, you could compare the xml files "functionally".

I had this same requirement to compare XSD files in a "functional" way -> ignoring the order of elements (where not important), whitespace, order of attributes, etc...
(we are migrating a Magicdraw model + XSD generation to EA + XSD generation and we need to know if the XSD's (about 500 of them) are functionally still 100% the same while allowing non-important differences)
What I end up doing was building my own comparer based on a code sample I found on a Microsoft website.

I uploaded it to github. I think you only need to change the (hardcoded) .xsd extension to .xml to make it compare xml file.

Geert
Thanks, Geert!

That should be really useful!  I'll give it a try when I get to work.

However, that doesn't change my need to know the expected output order.  You know my views on consistency.  Why is that outlier present?  I'm always nervous with "unknowns".

Paolo

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 404