How to show partial stereotype name?

[ssands]

Hi,

I have some elements that are stereotyped "TOGAF::Capability".

This is also how it shows up on my diagram.

I want to show the stereotype but I would like to show it as "Capability" without the "TOGAF::" prefix and it complicates the message for the end user.

Is there a way to do this other than creating my own Capability stereotype?

Thanks!

[qwerty]

You need to install the TOGAF MDG. That will interpret the stereotype and display the correct picture.

q.

[ssands]

You need to install the TOGAF MDG. That will interpret the stereotype and display the correct picture.

q.

It is installed and active. That is how I was able to choose that stereotype.

Or perhaps I'm missing something...

[ssands]

Further clue:

This happened when I changed the stereotype from something else.

If I create a new element with the TOGAF Capabiltiy then it shows how I want.

[ssands]

How to duplicate the issue:

Create an element with stereotype of Business Function (from TOGAF profile).
Change stereotype to Capability (From TOGAF Profile).

Stereotype now shows as TOGAG::Capability.

Create new element with stereotype of Capability from TOGAF profile.
Stereoptype shows as "Capability" without the "TOGAF::" qualifier.

[qwerty]

I don't have the TOGAF MDG so I can't verify that. Check if the Business Function and the Capability have the same meta type. If not, then this might be the cause. If they are the same you should probably report that as a bug.

q.

[KP]

I don't have the TOGAF MDG so I can't verify that. Check if the Business Function and the Capability have the same meta type. If not, then this might be the cause.

^ this.

TOGAF::BusinessFunction extends UML::Activity and TOGAF::Capability extends UML::Class, so they aren't really substitutable.

[ssands]

I don't have the TOGAF MDG so I can't verify that. Check if the Business Function and the Capability have the same meta type. If not, then this might be the cause.

^ this.

TOGAF::BusinessFunction extends UML::Activity and TOGAF::Capability extends UML::Class, so they aren't really substitutable.

Yes! Thank you!
Related question: so far the only way I know to determine what extends what is to do an csv export and look at it.

Is there a better way?

[KP]

Create one and remove its stereotype, see what's left.

[ssands]

Thanks!