Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [epf-dev] OPEN Process Framework Repository 
Peter,
Thanks; that helps. I still have a few comments/concerns (numbered as below):
2) In the OPFRO repository, each method component has a list of short component-specific textual guidelines on when and how to use it. In the OPFRO repository and the OPEN books, techniques are full method components and do not seem at all to be the same concept as the guideline. For example, cross-functional teams and brainstorming are techniques. Because it seems like you use the term guideline to mean technique, I am not sure what to do with what we call guidelines.
3) Actually, all types of method components should allow synonyms. Right now, roles do but tasks do not. Should synonyms be handled in a standardized way for all method components?
4) We have found that our method component definitions (your short descriptions) are typically in terms of other existing method components. We have therefore found it very useful to incorporate links to these other method components in the definitions. I would think that the tools could strip out these hyperlinks for certain uses of the definitions/short descriptions.
5) In the OPFRO repository, each method component does not have a brief description and a longer description. Instead, each method component has a definition (which I think maps to your brief description). We have not found the need to have a longer description, as the information is covered in the standard attributes of each method component. We do have a glossary, which primarily (99%+) consists of the names and definitions of all method components. As I understand it, your glossary consists of only concepts that are not method components. Is that right? 
Don Firesmith
Chair, OPFRO


Peter Haumer wrote:


See my comments in-line.

Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.

______________________________________________________________

Rational Software | IBM Software Group
PETER HAUMER, Dr. rer. nat.
RUP Development, Cupertino, CA
Tel/Fax: +1 408 863-8716
______________________________________________________________

epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 04/01/2006 08:46:13:

> Everyone,
> I have started transferring a discipline (Requirements Engineering) into 
> the epf tool, and I have run into the following problems so far:
> 1) There is no way to enter teams of roles.
Yes. We discussed that during the phone call. Actually, there will be a way to something like that with the newer version of the tool, which we are going to make available very soon: In there you can create capability patterns that would contain nothing else than Team Profiles. You can then apply this pattern patterns to your process and have your predefined team profiles (that is what we call a team definition) in place with just one drag-drop. I will demo that once the updated version of the tool is available.
We can however, add a functionality in the future that allows to directly specify and reuse "Team Profile templates".
> 2) There does not seem to be a way to enter techniques for performing tasks.
We call them "Guidelines". You create them as a guidance kind in every content folder. 

> 3) There does not seem to be a way to enter synonyms for tasks.
What would be the purpose? Why only for tasks and not other method content elements? 

> 4) Some fields seem to allow html but other doe not (e.g., brief
> description).  I do not seem to be able to enter links into brief
> descriptions.
Presentation Name and Brief Description are deliberately ASCII only, because they can appear in many places that are not html, such as yellow hover tags, text fields in dialog of the UI, etc. Our rules for brief description is to keep it brief. One or two sentences only. No links, no markup. all of this needs to go into the Main Description field. 

> 5) Should definitions of method components be in the brief description
> fields?  But then what about a glossary (guidance "term definition")?
I forgot: To what elements in EPF Composer do you map your method components? However, I do not see a component as a term. Components are a structural objects; not as a defined term in my understanding. 

> 6)   Role preview relationships are not sorted properly when entering
> several (e.g., alphabetically).  Role relationships do not handle long
> names well (overlapping).  They do not seem to scale up when you have
> many tasks and many work products (A list could be better if there are > many tasks or many work products). Why are lists used some times and 
> simple-minded graphs other times?
You should file the sorting problem as a bugzilla. I agree that they should be alphabetical. We made a lot of improvements for generating these diagrams. We will make these changes available in the tool asap. You can add an RFE in bugzilla to allow switching the diagrams off. 

> 7) The role responsible for a work product may change over time.  Yet
> currently, the assumption is that one role is the owner.  Perhaps
> produces may be a better concept.
Correct. In method content you specify the "default" relationship. I.e. the most common case of role-wp responsibility. Every process can override this relationship. You do this in the process editor in the properties view of a role descriptor. 

> 8)  How do you handle inheritance relationships between roles (e.g.,
> content worker, strategist, manager) and disciplines (e.g., types of
> requirements engineering) and tasks (e.g. visioning)?
The method content element editor has a section called "Content Variability" in the description tab. In this section you can select the base element with the "Select.." dialog. The variability type to choose for inheritance is Extends. 

>
> Donald Firesmith
> OPFRO Chair
>
> _______________________________________________
> epf-dev mailing list
> epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev

Back to the top