Create a new link type

[jhaydt]

Hi all,
I am looking at linking requirements that are related.  When I tried using the relationship matrix, I found that each of the link types provided is quite UML specific.  Not knowing UML that well, I was thinking of using the "Feature" link type, since the two requirements are related by feature set.  I have no idea, however, how to use the feature functionality in UML.  Is this going to cause headaches later when someone wants to use this feature functionality?  Can anyone suggest a link type I can "borrow" to do this?  I was thinking of creating my own link type, but that does not appear to be possible.  Any input on creating my own?

Thanks very much,
Jeff

[thomaskilian]

Jeff,
of course this is UML specific since EA is an UML modeling tool, not a requirements management tool. It can be used for that, too.

Regarding the features. I assume you use a stereotyped relation. You are free in using that and will not cause any headaches later (likely :-/). Some of the stereotypes have a common meaning in UML world but you are more or less free in redefining their meaning as long as you document that. So, if you're using EA for requirements management, go ahead using stereotyped relations. You also can create more if you feel the need for it.

[jhaydt]

[quote author=thomaskilian
<snip>
Regarding the features. I assume you use a stereotyped relation. You are free in using that and will not cause any headaches later (likely :-/). Some of the stereotypes have a common meaning in UML world but you are more or less free in redefining their meaning as long as you document that. So, if you're using EA for requirements management, go ahead using stereotyped relations. You also can create more if you feel the need for it.[/quote]

Thank you Thomas.

Your assumption on Stereotypes was incorrect.  I guess I do not completely understand them yet, as I thought they were purely UML specific.  I understand that I can add my own.  I *think* I understand also that they are added as an additional qualifier to a link, which has a link type by definition.  If I were to use stereotypes, does it matter what type of link I use?  If it matters, what would you recommend?  Association only?

Thanks for any further help.
Jeff

[«Midnight»]

An association is probably a good place to start. The obvious exception is when you are trying to create a special type of, say, composition or generalization or control flow - something that already has a 'generic' equivalent in UML that you want to 'improve' on. Then start with that type of link.

I have an application where I requre an "accountability" relationship. In this particular domain such a relationship suggests when entity A depends on entity B in a certain way, entity B is accountable to entity A within this context. In this case I created a stereotype and applied it to a UML dependency relationship.

If I did not have this 'reverse' relationship to document, I would have used the association link as the base for the stereotype.

This should help give you the flavour,
David