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 - Graham_Moir

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 50
General Board / Re: Office MDG and SharePoint
« on: April 10, 2019, 08:23:24 pm »
Within a corporate network and with the right permissions it's possible to publish directly to SharePoint from the HTML generation panel.

A SharePoint site/URL resolves to a folder on a server, this means that you can map a drive to it if you own the site in question.  Once you have a drive mapped, you can specify the path in the "Output to" field in the HTML generation panel and Bob's your Uncle.    For example, I have drive Z: mapped to Sharepoint and I can output to various folders such as  Z:\EA Tools\Capability Map  etc..

General Board / Re: Quick access pre-configured Relationship Matrix
« on: March 15, 2019, 11:41:45 pm »

You can definitely add a hyperlink to a diagram that links to a matrix profile and opens it if clicked.  "Matrix"  is one of the hyperlink options.  I just confirmed this words in 14.1

General Board / Re: Reporting Traceability
« on: March 09, 2019, 01:53:50 am »
Thank you Geert !

General Board / Re: Reporting Traceability
« on: March 08, 2019, 12:26:21 am »
We do it using an SQL fragment.


Is it possible to share that Geert?

General Board / Reporting Traceability
« on: March 07, 2019, 10:49:09 pm »

This topic has come up before - how do you get the very useful information reported via the traceability window in to a report?   I just did a search and there have been a few threads on this over the years, usually voicing frustration that it's not supported out of the box with a standard template. 

Well I've been away, and was just wondering whether there has been any progress with this?  Or does someone have an example template to achieve it?


Bugs and Issues / Re: Connector: Aggregation. Notation lost
« on: December 13, 2018, 09:39:46 pm »

Yes you need to delete the rogue stereotype. 

My Version is 14.1.1427
Have you logged a formal bug report referencing this thread?

General Board / Re: Logical Data Modelling in SPARX
« on: October 22, 2018, 08:04:30 pm »

Here's the old white paper from Sparx regarding Conceptual --> Logical --> Physical data modelling.

It does state that PK/FKs are not defined at the logical level.

General Board / Re: How to setup a RAS (Reusable Asset Service)? [solved]
« on: October 11, 2018, 08:28:57 pm »
This is helpful Shegit. 
It would help even more if you posted further to this thread as you work through the practical use of RAS

<sigh>  I'll repeat myself.

In ArchiMate the most practical method of modelling can be to model an archetype and then elements that realise the archetype.

Thank you for making the effort, and clarifying what specifically you found strange (I'll forgive the dramatics).
My interpretation of your comment is: even though there are not classes and instances in Archimate, the pattern of using an archetype with elements that realise that archetype can still be used. Hopefully that is the right interpretation, or close to right.

If I have understood your point then I certainly agree that it is a valid modelling pattern and can be used. Whether I have understood your point or not, I'd still assert that pattern isn't appropriate for all scenarios, and not for the specific ones that I have provided (in this thread and others);  and that there are genuine use cases for modelling when the most practical approach is to have the same element visualised on a diagram multiple times.

For a concrete example:
- I have an element, type Archimate Application Component, let's call it "SAP ERP" (in this sense "SAP ERP" is an instance of Application Component, but as stated earlier this is not useful in this context as the archimate meta-types aren't part of the model)
- This element realises (directly or indirectly) a number of Archimate Application Services, Business Processes, Business Services and Capabilities (again this is a different sense, these are not archetypes being realised)
- It so happens that "SAP ERP" realises multiple Capabilities and I wish to illustrate this in a diagram
- I could show "SAP ERP" and all the relevant Capabilities on a diagram with the connectors between them, however there are in fact multiple other Application Components i wish to show on the same view, so lots of arrows all over the place and no insights from the diagram
- Instead I choose to use block style (box in box) diagram of the Capabilities (Capability Map) and overlay all the Application Components on each of the relevant Capabilities they realise
- But I can't because I can only have one "SAP ERP" on the diagram.

Yes, I could create multiple Application Components, one for each of the Capabilities.  I could call each of them "SAP ERP" (or some variant), I could even establish a formal relationship between these and the 'real' "SAP ERP". Then I could place these all on the same diagram.  But these elements genuinely represent the same thing, their sole purpose is to make the diagram work - there is no value having them in the model.

There is a workaround to this provided you are prepared to work bottom up and accept slightly more onerous maintenance and apply some extra structure to the project browser.

The approach is to create an individual capability-app component diagram for each capability and overlay the application components in the way you want on each of these diagrams.  Obviously this will work as you won't be trying to put an element on the same diagram twice. 

Then to present the consolidated diagram that you really want, create another diagram and insert/drag-drop the specific diagrams you've created as diagram frames.  Move them around to get the information where you want it.  This works quite well in my opinion, especially if you use the appearance options to remove the diagram frame borders.  The consolidated diagram then looks pretty much as if you've created it directly.  The consolidated diagram is also dynamic and so updates automatically should any of the lower level individual diagrams be changed. 

General Board / Re: Default element size
« on: July 09, 2018, 06:51:13 pm »

A template package is a good approach, but attributes defined there will only affect an element at the time it is created. 

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Package Indicator for Baselines
« on: June 18, 2018, 08:02:42 pm »

Bugs and Issues / Re: EA14: Archimate shapescript / rendering issues
« on: June 18, 2018, 08:00:30 pm »

Confirmed there is a problem, although I just get a connector with a blank stereotype after using F3, but I don't have a special MDG loaded. 

That "spurious <MDG>::<Stereotype> entry in the local Stereotypes list.  Causing all manner of havoc."  has been an issue for a long time.  Time it was fixed for good.

Am I missing something, since at least v13 I experience the exact opposite - Diagram Filters that anybody creates is available for all others.  The problem I'm having is if Person A creates a Diagram Filter and Person B also uses that Diagram Filter but then modifies it, thus affecting Person A's diagram along with any other diagrams that may be using that Diagram Filter that Person B modified for everybody.

Yes, but if Person A applies a filter to a diagram, only person A sees the rendeing of the diagram with that filter.

Bugs and Issues / Re: EA14: Archimate shapescript / rendering issues
« on: June 13, 2018, 07:59:07 pm »
In build 1422

"ArchiMate 3

    - Quicklink behavior updated to set aggregation kind for Aggregation and Composition connectors
    - Connector validation rules updated:
        Specialization, Aggregation and Composition connectors now validate correctly
        Flow and Triggering connectors no longer report as not UML compliant"

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 50