Diagram Formats (EA vs. System Architect)

[Gayle]

I am currently using EA V13.5 build 1351.  We have developed a set of diagrams in EA using DoDAF and UML formats that are embedded in the EA tool.  We have a review going on and the reviewers can't seem to get past the fact that the diagrams are not the same formats that are produced by System Architect.

The example I have is from System Architect and it uses IDEF0 for the activity model (OV-5); a node connectivity diagram for OV-2 and a Systems Communication diagram for SV-2.  Our activity diagrams are UML Behavioral Activity diagrams and use the elements in the toolbox format "Activity".  Our OV-2 diagrams are resource flow diagrams that use the UML Behavioral Communication diagram type and the toolbox elements "Communication".  Our SV-2 diagrams are UML Structural Component diagrams and use elements from the toolbox element "Component".

Can anyone provide ideas on how to quickly generate similar diagrams in EA?  I'm primarily interested in the OV-2 and SV-2.  Are there particular diagram formats or MDG technologies that may lend themselves to providing something closer to the System Architect formats?

Thank you, Gayle

[Sunshine]

Not familiar with the latest version of System Architect as not used it for about 16 years now. It used to support all sorts of notations. In Sparx EA there is a MDG called UPDM (Unified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM) architectures) and its not clear if you are using that. Sounds like that might support the notation you need. If you need to convert your UML diagrams you can probably write a JScript to change diagrams, element types and relationships. There are some example JScripts in Sparx EA and Geert has provided even more in GIT. See the community page for more info.
If you are already using UPDM and its just that Sparx EA and System Architect are rendering the diagrams differently then refer to the standard. Its likely Sparx EA is rendering it correctly and SA isn't. If that assumption is correct then just inform your reviewers that its different because SA didn't follow the standard and they've just gotten used to a format that is non-standard and thus invalid. The new format is the correct one and you've just been working with an invalid format all those years. I've had this sort of this happen in the past to me. Sometimes its just easier to change the people's perspectives.

[Gayle]

Our diagrams are not really using the UPDM formats in EA.  They are closer to the UML formats.

I would love to tell the reviewers that what they have been seeing is obsolete, but it is not a "politically correct" solution to our problem on the document review. 

I will look into your suggestion that UPDM may provide me with some diagram formats that are "similar" to the System Architect formats.

Thank you, Gayle

[rbudwig1]

Gayle,

Unfortunately, the IDEF0 diagrams are really not supported in Sparx.  You can get the arrows to match the IDEF format but the floating end of the connectors are difficult to deal with in Sparx.  It would be easier to educate your reviewers how the other diagram provides a richer set of information.

Rex

[Gayle]

Rex,

Thank you for the information.  I had come to the same conclusion, so the OV-5 activity diagrams will remain as is and I'm not going to try to create them using IDEF.  On a positive note, I was able to successfully generate OV-2 and SV-2 diagrams that "look" similar to the ones that the reviewers have been seeing.

Gayle