Messages

1

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Capture requirements from Microsoft Word

« on: March 26, 2010, 10:39:16 am »

We are using RaQuest as a front end to EA for requirements management.  While you can certainly do RM work in EA, the more graphical approach is less effective for many people (until you start working on traceability and further analysis work in the models).

Having worked with Rational ReqPro and Borland Caliber, I would say that RaQuest is not bad, especially for the money (about 10% of the cost for 80% of the functionality).  It does most of what I want (including a form of impact analysis now), places the data natively into EA (where I want it anyway for traceability) and provides the users with a "table based" UI that they are more likely to find approachable than the full complexity of EA.

The good thing about Sparx is that they focus on the core functionality and provide an extensible platform for third party developers to provide functional add-ons.  I think this is better than trying to be all things to all people, and ending up with bloatware containing functionality many people will never use.

It's always nice to see Sparx add new stuff (I must try out Simon's example), and the ability to extact text from Word into any element is always going to be useful.  But I am very happy with RaQuest, and recommend it.

Just my 2 cents, but hopefully it will be useful.

2

Suggestions and Requests / Re: MDG Stereotypes in Settings|UML|Stereotypes

« on: April 19, 2010, 08:52:21 am »

Agreed.  It can be quite disconcerting when one is creating technologies to not see the stereotypes listed.  This would be a useful improvement, especially if the window made clear which MDG each stereotype was defined in.

3

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Glossary Improvements

« on: February 25, 2010, 10:59:48 pm »

I look forward to reading it Geert.

4

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Glossary Improvements

« on: February 25, 2010, 10:13:51 am »

We also model a "real" Ontology model (or Business Information Model as we call it).
This model stays pretty close to a business glossary, we don't add attributes, no associations etc..
What we do use is define a taxonomy relationship between the different elements ("duck" is a "bird")

Geert, that sounds interesting, and certainly has applicability for us as well (we work extensively with clinical terminologies).  I would certainly be interested in seeing an example of how you have achieved this.

However the glossary requirement is noting more than that, and so in that manner I will pursue the enhancement with Sparx.  

But you and Paolo have certainly given me some food for wider thoughts!

5

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Glossary Improvements

« on: February 25, 2010, 10:10:33 am »

I've now come to view EA as an "engine" on which you place your modelling environment.

Yes!  I believe these types of products (and I've played with a couple now) are more than a simple modelling tool, but rather a platform in their own right.

We are already adding functionality in terms of the MDG technologies for our use as well.  However there are some things I would still prefer to see "in the box".  I will get that feature request raised.

6

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Glossary Improvements

« on: February 24, 2010, 05:08:43 pm »

Paolo

Interesting.  I had not considered it that way, although there are many here who might.  However that was not really the intent.  

I am after a fairly flat structure rather than a complex beast.  The problem is, as always, EA provides a great deal of functionality, but not quite enough to stop people essentially duplicating the functionality in order to get that extra 5-10% of value.

If I had to assign priorities to my requests, they would be:

1.  Add an abbreviation field.
2.  Add a (single) URI field for references.
3.  Add the "see also" links. (bonus-type feature).

7

Suggestions and Requests / Glossary Improvements

« on: February 24, 2010, 11:17:02 am »

I note that in v8, the Glossary functionality has been extended so that the list of available Types can be expanded beyond the standard Business and Technical.

However we would like to have additional functionality as follows:

• An optional abbreviation field.  If provdied, then context-sensitivity in elements would need to be able to pick up the term or the abbreviation.
• Alternatively, the ability to specify an abbreviation as a separate term, linked to the master definition.  This is less useful, but could be made to work.
• One (or more?) link fields to allow reference to an external URL (or file) which is the source of the definition.  This is necessary to validate/substantiate the definitions.  It can be done in the text, but would be better as a separate field(s).
• One or more cross-references between glossary definitions, such that "see also:" type references can be made between terms.

The rationale behind this is that EA already supports most of what is required in a good enterprise glossary, which is necessary for modelling purposes.  However the additional attributes listed above would allow EA to be the single source of the enterprise repository, avoiding duplication/integration and providing real benefit to people otehr than modelling staff.

8

Suggestions and Requests / Re: OCL Query Window

« on: January 30, 2010, 05:57:39 am »

Geert

Yes, I have used that myself on the odd occasion.  However an OCL evaluation tool can do more than simply list the items.  I have used it before to run counts of certain classifications of elements in a model (for sanity checking transformations).  I could also return columns of data like a mini reporting system.

However I will go back and look again at the existing search features.

Thanks.

9

Suggestions and Requests / OCL Query Window

« on: January 29, 2010, 03:43:38 pm »

In the past I have used Borland's Together UML product.  While I much prefer EA, there was one feature in Together that was very useful.  It was possible to open a window into which you could type OCL (with intellisense features) in order to perform queries against the model.  While not the original intention of OCL, it is very useful!

10

Suggestions and Requests / Save diagrams in SVG format

« on: January 21, 2010, 10:30:53 am »

It would be very useful to be able to save a diagram as an SVG image file.

11

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Improvements for generating MDG technologies

« on: December 23, 2009, 12:42:00 pm »

Paolo

Wasn't uppermost on my mind, but certainly useful!!

Regards
David

12

Suggestions and Requests / Improvements for generating MDG technologies

« on: December 23, 2009, 09:51:26 am »

It would be most useful if SDK extensions were available to allow a VB Script (in EA) to be written to build an MSG Technology.

Also the combo that allows the selection of an existing MTS file is too short if you are using a folder underneath "My Folders".

13

Suggestions and Requests / Improvements for building UML Profiles

« on: December 23, 2009, 09:53:56 am »

It would be useful if the SDK was extended to allow a VB script in EA to be able to generate UML Profiles.  This is especially true where you are building a series of related profiles.

Also it would be useful if the destination file for the profile could be stored in the package/diagram so it is defaulted into the generation dialog.  If you are generating a couple of them, you have to remember to pick the right file each time.

14

General Board / Re: Shared Requirements

« on: May 17, 2010, 07:54:12 am »

That way, if anyone is stupid enough to attempt changes to the (specially stereotyped) shared requirements their changes get overwritten next cycle..

Paolo

I love it!!     Not quite what I was after, but none the less a suitable way of dealing with infidels who play with shared requirements!!

Unfortunately it isn't ideal for us, as we have a single project (large related programme of work), but certainly food for thought...

15

General Board / Shared Requirements

« on: May 14, 2010, 02:57:12 pm »

I could be opening a can of worms with this one , but let's see...

We are using EA and RaQuest to manage requirements, analysis and design for a broad range of related projects within a single repository.  There are some projects that have the concept of common requirements, in that all the projects have the same set of base requirements, plus their own domain specific ones.  Ideally the wording of these requirements would be consistent across all projects, and it would be possible to see which projects shared a particular requirement.

Some of us have previously used the CalibreRM product (and are still getting therapy!  ).  It had a feature whereby you could set up a folder of shared requirements.  Then for a specific project, you could create a mapped requirement.  This mapped requirement acted as a local placeholder, but the text and attributes of the shared requirement were copied over to the mapped one, and could not be locally edited.

In EA (and RaQuest), I could set up a "common" requirement, and then create local instances of it that trace back to the common one.  this is the only way to get similar functionality that I can see, although it doesn't provide the fixed text option that CaliberRM does.  

Does anybody have any thoughts, comments or religious statements to make about shared/common requirements?