Messages

1

Suggestions and Requests / Multidimensional relationship matrix

« on: September 08, 2009, 12:42:47 pm »

A frequent requirement during architecture and design is establishing complex relationships between architectural elements and external information. For example, I would like to define a matrix that captures all my report attributes like report id, report execution time, report type, security, ... etc and then in the last cell I would like to include a link directly  to the report specification in EA.  I know I can do this by manually putting in HTML or RTF links into an Excel, but it would be great if there was an option to load and maintain a matrix in EA.

I am envisioning something like a matrix load option.  The user can use Excel to create an external matrix and load it into EA.  Ea then opens the matrix within itself, and allows addition of columns, where the user can include package links.

This will also help with  complex tracability matrices and decision tables.

Anyone else thinks it is a good idea?

Bobby

I should

2

Suggestions and Requests / Flexible index matrix

« on: September 11, 2008, 01:48:24 am »

Hi everyone,

A frequent requriement on projects is visually linking all documentation related to a project together.  For example project workpackets, to requiremetns, to external documents, to technical archietcture docs, to test cases, to external project approval sheets, to extrnal web sites.

Some of this can be done within EA through the use of UML relationships but most often projects end up using Excel or MS word for this fucntionality as not everything is captured in UML, and also sometimes relationships need to be defined at much higher level than UML elements.

So if EA had a simple Excel (hold on, don't kill me yet) sort of functionality, maybe a matrix under the Extended tools.  The matrix cells could contain simple notes, ability to include external links, ability to directly link EA project packages, and maybe a simple column type for sequence number generation.

These relationships do not have to translate down to UML.  It is just a visual interface for providing "visual tracability" on projects. I am sure if we discuss this further, we all have bright ideas on this forum on how this can be built.

I would find this feature useful and it will definitely encourage more people to use EA.

Bobby

3

Suggestions and Requests / What EA needs for large organizations?

« on: May 02, 2007, 12:27:25 pm »

We have been an EA user for almost a year and half and I have many great things to say about it.  But, one area where EA fails is that it still looks at the Architecture world one project at a time.

I can create individual projects in EA but cannot share elements between projects.  We want to document our organization in Enterprise models and document our projects in models that share elements with the Enterprise project.  Basically we want to have one project called enterprise.eap, which contains our enterprise actors, activities, hardware systems and the rest.  And let’s say a Claims Processing project that uses elements from enterprise.eap project.  We want to centralize changes as much as possible to enterprise elements, and have them reflected in all projects using those elements.  This allows us to do much better impact analysis.

Unfortunately the only way to handle this in EA today is by keeping the projects in one big project.  Even disregarding the performance and security issues, there is a major usability issue.  My project team working on Claims Processing Project has to navigate through the huge model in EA which contains about 45 projects.  It is becoming unusable.

This requirement has been expressed and asked for many times in these forums.  Is there any possibility that EA Engineers and Developers would consider including this?

Thank you for great work and patience listening to all the requests.  I do strongly believe that for EA to be taken seriously in corporate world it needs to grow in this specific area.

Hope to see some solution to this very annoying issue soon.  In our organization, some people are reaching the end of their faith in EA because of this one.

Regards,
Bobby

4

General Board / Background color display issue

« on: December 10, 2013, 03:34:19 am »

My apologies if this questions has already been answered.  Searched for it and could not find anything.

Basic question:  Why can I not see the background color of objects and Boundaries in my diagram?

I don't think it can be a bug (it is so basic) so I am definitely not doing something right.

Thanks,
Bobby

5

General Board / Re: Copy and Paste Diagram - retain formatting

« on: October 28, 2013, 12:01:27 pm »

Thanks qwerty, so it does.  Not sure how I missed it.  It seems to be working fine.

Much appreciated.

B

6

General Board / Copy and Paste Diagram - retain formatting

« on: October 24, 2013, 06:35:34 am »

Hello everyone,

To show Current State and Target State on two separate diagrams, I tried to copy the current state diagram and paste it into the target state.  The changes are in some specific areas, so it would be easier to use the Current State as the starting point.

But the formatting got all messed up and I spent a lot of time getting the diagram back in order.

Is there a way to do this in EA i.e. retain formatting.

Thanks,
Bobby

7

General Board / Date attribute in custom UML profile

« on: September 07, 2013, 12:45:59 am »

For a custom profile, in the Stereotype element I am trying to add  Attributes with the Data and Time datatypes.  There are no date, time or datetime datatype in the drop down list of datatypes.

I found the following post and followed its instructions but it did not work - "

Go to "Settings | UML | Tagged Value Types" and create a tagged value type called "approved_date" with detail field set to "Type=DateTime;". Then go to your profile definition and give your <<stereotype>> class an attribute named "approved_date". Save the profile, import the profile and it should work."

Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated.

Thanks

8

General Board / Re: Customize Archimate 2.0

« on: June 07, 2013, 03:00:33 pm »

Thank you qwerty and Dermot.  Your answers really helped me.  Did not know that this was even available in EA 10.

Much appreciated.  I have some more questions which I will post tomorrow.

Bobby

9

General Board / Customize Archimate 2.0

« on: June 07, 2013, 04:35:49 am »

Is it possible to add custom tag labels to to Archimate 2 System Software element?

Essentially we are trying to define custom values that people can capture without having to remember the tag labels?

I am new to this.  Please excuse be if this is a very basic feature.

Thanks,
Bikram

10

General Board / SQL Server 2005 SP2 table and column comments

« on: September 02, 2010, 08:26:36 am »

I am reverse engineering a SQL DB and noticed that the table level comments do not appear in the properties window.  Column level comments do.  When I generate the DDL from the same schema in EA (after reverse engineering), I notice that it creates extendedproperty DDL for all the comments correctly.  So the problem is only with displaying the table level comments.

Any workarounds available?  Is anyone else experiencing the same issue?

Thank you.  B

11

General Board / Re: Sharing elements across version controlled pac

« on: September 30, 2009, 01:16:05 pm »

Excellent discussion, and I agree that in a way adding an association between A1 and B1 (A1 being the source) is changing A1.  Or at least, this is how EA interprets it.

On the other hand, is a relationship an attribute of an element, source or destination?  In my opinion, an element (i.e. an object or class or anything) is standalone even if it is dependent on another element.  Isn't that the foundation of all modern system architectures?

I confess that I am not an authority on UML, and I am just using plain logic for this interpretation.  Seems like EA has incorrectly tightly coupled the relationships to the source elements.

I guess, if checked in elements cannot be linked "from", using EA security would likely result in the same situation e.g. if a solutions architect does not have the permissions to modify the "Enterprise Package" then he/she will not be able to establish links from that package (as source).

Bobby

12

General Board / Sharing elements across version controlled package

« on: September 29, 2009, 01:50:42 am »

Hi everyone,

I ran into a roadblock while sharing elements across version controlled packages. Please help with solutions or suggestions if you can.  Thank you.  Here are the detaials.  Let's say I have following packages:

Package A  --> Version controlled and currently Checked In
    Diagram A
    Element A1
    Element A2
Package B  --> Version controlled and currently Checked Out
    Diagram B
    Element B1
    Element B2

So I am happily working on Diagram B and bring in the element A1 as a Simple Link share type.  Now I establish association between B1 and A1 (source to destination) and it works.  Then I establish association between A1 and B2 (source to destination) and it does not work.  Reason A1 is not checked out.

So it appears that for an association to orginate from an element that element has to be cheked out.

My plan was to to have a project where certain parts of the project are checked in and hence locked, but the elements from these packages can still be shared by a broader team in their individual models.  Now that whole idea seems to be at risk.

How can I accomplish this in EA?  Any help is appreciated.

Bobby

13

General Board / Re: Spellcheck not working

« on: August 10, 2009, 09:16:41 pm »

Thanks for the reply.  Yes, I did  run the spell check.  Apparently it does not check the element names.  Some people feel that the logic is that element names can have too many non-dictionary words.  It does not make a lot of sense to me, as it can be an option default being "do not spell check element names".

This limitation can cause oa lot of issues with many models, more specifically, Activity, BPMN and Database, because they all use dictionary words very often.

I would encourage Sparx to stop thinking about this tool as just a "technical tool" for techies.  I am trying to increase its adoption across the board in the organization but things like this a hindrance.

Hopefully this can be included in the next release.

Thanks,
Bobby

14

General Board / Spellcheck not working

« on: August 05, 2009, 05:58:08 am »

Hello everyone,

We are using Activity diagrams for process mapping, and have noticed that spelling mistakes in the Name field are not caught.  Is this how EA works or am i doing something wrong?

Appreciate any help I can get.  Thanks.
Bobby

15

General Board / Increasing EA Adoption

« on: December 09, 2008, 03:40:49 am »

Hi everyone,

Let me start off by saying that EA is a great tool.

But the fact is that while most of us feel comfortable with UML, profiles, cardinality and documentation templates, most organizations are still using Visio, Word and Excel.  These tools provide no functionality for traceability or sophisticated robustness and validation features, but they are easy to use.

EA has come a long way but unfortunately it seems like visio and word are still winning.  Why do I care?  I care because I would like to see more and more organizations adopt  robust design practices.  I would like to propose that we start a new message board, say "Mainstreaming EA" (or whatever, I don't care about the name) which focuses only on discussing features that will help us make EA mainstream.

Here are a few examples:
- Allow multiple levels of bullets and numbering within the notes field
- Improve EA help and tutorials by having less technical people write these
- Improve the diff and compare feature.  The current view is very technical.  Why shouldn't a BA be able to use this feature and get an understanding of what has changed in the model?
- The document template editor is great but proper documentation is needed.  I had to spend so much time learning about its nuances.  It is not for the faint of heart.
- Create extensions to UML to allow users to create Logical models.  Right now even a logical view has to be extremely robust.  Users end up going back to Visio and they continue using it through the detailed design phases of the project.  Why can't EA allow users to include meaningless visual objects in the models only for the purpose of documentation.  EA can always throw out a warning that the logical model is not robust and should not be used for more detailed design.   Let users choose the level of robustness in some models.

I have to make an extreme statement, I believe very few people besides the techies like us care about UML, but in most organizations technology is considered an expense and not a strategic revenue generating department.  So why don't we build tools that can provide value not only to techies but can show value to business users.  Great looking EA models in user presentations, and accurate documentation right from the tool would be great start.  (I know we can do it in EA, but look at the effort)

Even with all the improvements over the last one year EA remains a techy tool.  Just throwing it out there.  We can judge by the responses to this post whether these views are in minority or together we can contribute ideas to make EA a more "mainstream" application.

Thank you.

Regards,
Bobby