Developing a meta model and aplying it to an existing project

[Modesto Vega]

The steps you list do not seem to make any sense in creating a MDG.

q.

Step1 is where you have an issue.

You have to model the metamodel (e.g. stereotypes extending metaclasses)
Start reading here: http://sparxsystems.com/enterprise_architect_user_guide/12.1/building_models/createprofile.html

So, you are saying that the 1st step is to create profile package needs to be created. Correct?

Gentlemen,

With all my due respects, I think that some contributors  might have missed a trick with the original question.

If, as I expect, I have to start by creating a Profile Package, thanks to Geert who as usual might have just hit the nail on the head, the only way I can do that is by creating a profile package inside a Model.

This is likely to mean that if I have a complex project containing various models all using different customised profiles within the same root node, I need to create a profile package for each customised profile.

In other words, if I have the following structure

Root node
-----Model 1 - Customised BPMN 2.0
-----Model 2 - Customised UML 2.0
-----Model 3 - Customised Oracle Data Model
-----Model 4 - Customised PostGRES Data Model

I need to create 4 package profiles, one per model and not one package profile. This is, of course, assuming that I can customised the data models.

Once I have done that, I am assuming that I can Generate an MDG Technology file including the 4 customised profiles.

[qwerty]

I give up here. wrt your original question I can not see what your issue is. Maybe you should do the same and start over with a new thread and a clear question.

q.

[Modesto Vega]

I give up here. wrt your original question I can not see what your issue is. Maybe you should do the same and start over with a new thread and a clear question.

q.

The questions we have arrived to cannot be clearer:

1) Do I have to start the process of creating an MDG file by creating a package profile on an existing model?
2) If I am using more than one profile in my project/programme and want to customise all, do I need to create a package profile for each profile I want to use?

Based on Geert's last contribution I think the answer is Yes to both.

[qwerty]

If you need multiple profiles, create one package or diagram for each.

(The need for multiple profiles as such is rare.)

q.

[Modesto Vega]

(The need for multiple profiles as such is rare.)

Have you ever done Enterprise Architecture with just 1 profile? I haven't.

Unless you buy the TOGAF MDG or Zachman Framework MDG you need more than one profile and I will even go futher and argue that you need more than 1 profile even with both of them as physical data modelling is not covered by any of them.

For me, the whole point of using EA is that it can use many profiles within the same root node.

[Geert Bellekens]

(also notice the learning centre reference)

LOL

I don't the the humor here. The learning center topic is an excellent step by step instruction on how to create a UML profile.

Geert

[qwerty]

For me, the whole point of using EA is that it can use many profiles within the same root node.

if you say so.

q.

[Glassboy]

1) Do I have to start the process of creating an MDG file by creating a package profile on an existing model?

No.  I recommend you start with a separate EAP file with nothing in it and use the wizard to create you the basic MDG structure.

2) If I am using more than one profile in my project/programme and want to customise all, do I need to create a package profile for each
profile I want to use?

Each profile is saved as a separate file, as is the diagram extensions, and each set of toolboxes.

[Modesto Vega]

1) Do I have to start the process of creating an MDG file by creating a package profile on an existing model?

No.  I recommend you start with a separate EAP file with nothing in it and use the wizard to create you the basic MDG structure.

2) If I am using more than one profile in my project/programme and want to customise all, do I need to create a package profile for each
profile I want to use?

Each profile is saved as a separate file, as is the diagram extensions, and each set of toolboxes.

Thanks Glassboy this clearly answers both questions and the answer is really much appreciated. This essentially means that to do what we have in mind I need 4 or 5 profiles, which is more of less what I have being suspecting all the way through this thread.

1) a profile for a customised domain model,
2) a profile for a customised class model,
3) a profile for a customised component model,
4) a profile for a customised data model,
5) possibly a profile for a customised use case model.

4) assumes that any model with a <<DataModel>> stererotype uses the Data Modelling profile. Anybody can confirm this?

Together with any profiles for custom diagrams, and toolboxes, developing the metamodel we have in mind becomes a project in its own.

[Geert Bellekens]

You can in fact choose for yourself if you want to create one large profile with all stereotypes you will ever need, or several smaller ones.

MDG allows to add more then one profile in an MDG file.

I'm not sure what the «DataModel» stereotype is you are referencing.

Geert

[Glassboy]

Thanks Glassboy this clearly answers both questions and the answer is really much appreciated. This essentially means that to do what we have in mind I need 4 or 5 profiles, which is more of less what I have being suspecting all the way through this thread.

As Geert said, it's up to you.  Making some assumptions about what you're saying tho' I think you actually want one profile and several different diagram types.

4) assumes that any model with a <<DataModel>> stererotype uses the Data Modelling profile. Anybody can confirm this?

I also don't know what you're referring to here.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

We've taken the route of a single large MDG.  We're aggregating a small number of (previously) distinct MDGs into one, integrated and coherent MDG.

As I've said previously (elsewhere in the forum), we're doing this, while "in flight" so it's a case of (manly) small steps.

We're finding that having one place to find issues and to make common changes make it easier.

I think Modesto in his «DataModel» question is (as is often the case) confusing model with diagram.  He's actually asking: "Does that mean a «DataModel» diagram uses the Data Modelling MDG?"

If that's the question, then it's still (potentially) the wrong question (or at least asked in the wrong way) - but the answer (or at least the explanation of how MDGs work) requires Modesto to confirm that the question as I've outlined above is the question he's asking.

Paolo

[Glassboy]

As I've said previously (elsewhere in the forum), we're doing this, while "in flight" so it's a case of (manly) small steps.

Captain Arthur Phillip is a much older cultural reference than your norm :-)

[Paolo F Cantoni]

As I've said previously (elsewhere in the forum), we're doing this, while "in flight" so it's a case of (manly) small steps.

Captain Arthur Phillip is a much older cultural reference than your norm :-)

Well Caught! 

But, I DO like to think my steps ion this case are still manly... 

Paolo

[Modesto Vega]

Thanks for replies.

Regarding

I think Modesto in his «DataModel» question is (as is often the case) confusing model with diagram.  He's actually asking: "Does that mean a «DataModel» diagram uses the Data Modelling MDG?"

<<DataModel>> is a model stereotype. It does not relate to a diagram, to confuse matters. To reproduce follow these steps:

Using the wizard create a model using Database as the Technology and pick anything under Database Engineering. This will create a model with an stereotype of <<DataModel>>, inside 2 packages are created one called 'Logical Data Model' with no sterortype and another with <<Database>> as the stereotype for the pacakge.

Are you saying this is created using a Data Modelling MDG, presumably Database Engineering and/or Entity Relationship Diagram (see Extensions\MDG Technologies)? I so, is there a way of customising this MDG?