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 - Glassboy

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 77
76
Bugs and Issues / Re: V1426 & 1425 "Information Flow" - where I Find?
« on: September 11, 2018, 08:05:51 am »
Yes, we have used "Information Flow" for many years (before my coming). We used "items Conveyed" to indicate certain things. It is a pity that they suddenly started to stick to such standards, at the same time not "facilitating" such a simple thing as building a list of the most used things in eg "Quick Linker" - Scripting is not easy to build

It's not a pity, it stops people complaining that ArchiMate isn't UML because that got boring after the 20th or 30th time we heard it. :-)

77
Bugs and Issues / Re: Toolbox with extended stereotypes
« on: September 11, 2018, 08:02:26 am »
Does anyone have similar experiences? Am I doing something wrong, or is there a bug in the profile helper for toolboxes.

I don't think the helper has ever created the second connection to the base metatype.

78
I'll experiment a bit with the View specifications, but it now looks like I have no choice but to define my own diagram type.

The EA diagram types don't map to a particular ArchiMate viewpoint so it wouldn't be a bad idea to create diagram types that do, and that contain appropriate toolboxes.

79
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.

You don't have a model or element problem, you have a viewpoint problem which is fairly typical with ArchiMate.  It also sounds like you are creating the SAP ERP archetype but you want to mix it with other archetypes.

I'd suggest two things.  Firstly the larger view may satisfy a desire you have but may not be the best communication tool.  Secondly don't start at that point.  See if you can create a number of A4 landscape views of the major application components and the application services they serve.  Once you have those print them all out and see if you can add application collaboration elements in a way that make sense.

Then and only then jump up to your wacky strategy level capabilities.  You might find that your capability map might be better as a mapping of capability to application function, or to technology function if you are consuming web services.  It will also allow you to include missing functions that are not being provided but are needed for the organisation to have the capability.

80
Before I can go any further, I need to pick a stereotype -- but I have no idea which one I should pick. Then I need to pick a base class, apparently.

Have I missed the documentation that explains how to proceed beyond this point?

I generally just look in the MDG and find what they have extended.  It's also been discussed on the forum enough that you should find it by searching.

81
It's like you don't bother to read what people reply to you with.

1) Communication is the responsibility of the communicator - if someone doesn't understand what you say, and so asks questions to clarify what you mean, then the fault is yours not theirs. If your response is going to simply be "you're not listening to me" then the value of discourse and the opportunity to really share knowledge is gone.

<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.   

82
That's a strange thing to say about ArchiMate.  Firstly because it doesn't have the generalisation relationship, but from a wider perspective the most practical way of modelling some architectures is to create an archetype and have elements that realise it.

Glassboy - I'm not sure from your comment what specifically you find strange ... ? The use of the work generalisation? I was couching my response in terms of Richard's suggestion which inherently relies on the concept of classes and instances (both supported explicitly by Sparx) which don't translate into Archimate; attempting to do so (using specialisation not generalisation as pointed out by Paolo) would be cumbersome at best.

It's like you don't bother to read what people reply to you with.

83
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Need: Category (Tagged Value Type)
« on: September 06, 2018, 09:15:44 am »
I can select by a substring in Keywords to include or exclude packages and (I think) entities in the gernated document view. (See link).
You can insert the Keywords field in generated documents.

It doesn't seem to be visible from places like the specification manager.

84
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Need: Category (Tagged Value Type)
« on: September 06, 2018, 08:23:37 am »
My scenario is that I am managing requirements.
I must be able to generate a view of the requirements model as a word document.
For example:
  • A requirement has a classification 'requirements level' (e.g. Must, Should, May)
  • A requirement has a category 'platform' (e.g. IaaS, PaaS, SaaS)
  • A requirement only has one 'requirement level', but may apply to more than one 'platform'.
I have a similar requirement.  I've been trying to use keywords for a category but I don't seem to be able to expose the keywords in any meaningful way.

85
Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / Re: 1 to many tag value
« on: September 06, 2018, 08:08:47 am »
Picture would be good.  You stick it on some kind of public host and use a link to it.  Please not Dropbox tho' as I can't see Dropbox from my work computer.

86
It looks as though the definition is our restriction, not inheritance.  Is that your reading?

Well I think you have to be careful to compare apples with apples.  ArchiMate is a notation and UML is a language.  In UML it's useful to talk about the language concepts and abstractions in a theoretical way.  With ArchiMate if you can't produce a viewpoint that conveys the same information to every viewer with symantec consistency you're just wasting everyone's time.

I can't think of a time where I wanted the same element on a view twice because mostly I either have the archetype view, the realised view, or ArchiMate just can't inherently produce the view I need*.

My reading of the ArchiMate specialisation is that it is a kludge and that you're applying more rigour to it than the ArchiMate authors.

* For example how do you show what a product is used for (and no this is not any of the motivation elements).

87
Richard - for me the challenge is that we are using Archimate as well as UML.
From an Archimate perspective, there is no such thing as an instance (or alternatively an element is the instance depending on how you look at it).  The overhead and implications of creating children and generalisations make that quite messy, and breaks the model (in the sense that there are multiple things representing the same thing).

That's a strange thing to say about ArchiMate.  Firstly because it doesn't have the generalisation relationship, but from a wider perspective the most practical way of modelling some architectures is to create an archetype and have elements that realise it.

88
Bugs and Issues / Re: MDG Load Error Logs Needed
« on: August 31, 2018, 09:41:07 am »
Do they use it in any way?

Honestly I never looked into the Windoze logs. Probably since I never could get any useable info from there unlike from *NIX logs. It's not that I think they are pretty or smart, they aren't, but they are used in a way by most sub-systems in a somewhat common way so you CAN get useful info.

As a daily user of both Windows and *nix and someone who spent a significant proportion of his career dealing with monitoring and management systems I'd have to say that the Windows log sub-system is by fair the better.  Looking on my work machine I can only find errors in my application log for the couple of times EZ.exe crashed.  So basically no, they don't seem to make use of it.

89
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Current user's name (about the display)
« on: August 31, 2018, 08:55:48 am »
It would be interesting to have the current user's name in the "About EA" dialog box (or elsewhere).

What would that help with?

90
Bugs and Issues / Re: MDG Load Error Logs Needed
« on: August 31, 2018, 08:51:30 am »
These guys just don't know what error logs are. I asked for that ages ago and never ever I saw the slightest improvements. This hidden "dberror.txt"  speaks for itself. They have a so called System Log window but it shows only messages created by (user) script. Bah!

It's not like Windows doesn't have a extensive logging subsystem built in.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 77