[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [epf-dev] Overarching considerations
|
..back from holidays ...after reading all the emails on these topics I
believe the status is:
1) Glossary Work Product - Added to Bugzilla
The Analyst role should be responsible for this work product . I think
we should add a step to the TASK:Identify and Outline Requirements to
add high level Domain terms to the Glossary ... and another step to the
TASK: Detail Requirements that could be used for adding to the glossary
the data attributes that are referred in the use cases
2) Rules: We could put them on the F section from the Supporting
Requirements (FURPS+) and add a step to the TASK: Detail Requirements to
explain how identify rules from use case steps and why the rules should
be isolated from the use cases
3) Interface Requirements: We could put them on the + section from the
Supporting Requirements (FURPS+) An /interface requirement /specifies an
external item with which a system must interact, or constraints on
formats or other factors used within such an interaction... so the
template should provide section for defining input and output parameters
as well validations that should be done (from the rules section)
4) GUI Architecture .. I was not proposing nothing too fancy (for that a
plug in on user experience is the best option ) ...but only some
guidance for the developers... what about a section on the software
architecture document (logical view/ presentation layer) addressing
templating and layout solutions/ frameworks that should be followed in
development?
5) Database model - Plug-in -> I agree
6) Deployment -> I volunteer to add content. I think it should be in 1.0
release
I also volunteer to add content for 1) 2) and 3) and for creating a
template for Supporting Requirements that illustrates how each type of
requirement shroud be written
Ana
Ricardo Balduino wrote:
Ana
Thank you for your observations.
I think these are good points to discuss with each subgroup (or
discipline owners) as pointed in the email below. You may want to join
these groups or interact with the listed owners.
In a nutshell, the discussion should be around:
- if glossary and rules have to be captured, are they worth of having
their own artifact or being in a section inside the Vision? The former
increases number of artifacts in BUP (do we desire that?) as where as
the later, although seems to preserve the number of artifacts, may
cause the Vision doc to be cluttered.
- GUI architecture: we may consider a guideline explaining how to
address these concerns. Is this something you would like to contribute
to by writing such guideline, in case we decide to cover it?
- Interface with external systems: these systems (who) should be
captured and described as actors in the Use Case model. Any further
description in terms of types of interaction (what) is expected with
these systems could be seen as Supporting Requirement and captured in
such artifact. But we may need to revisit architecture/development
tasks to eventually include step or guidance (how) to develop
interfaces to such systems.
- Data modeling hasn't been discussed to be in BUP (yet, as far as I
remember). Could it be in a plug-in later?
- Deployment: we've been postponing a more serious consideration of
that discipline in BUP. My take is that we should cover the essentials
of it, and your suggestions below seem adequate. Now it's a decision
on if we include it in release 1.0 in September or later. I see it in
core BUP though, not as a plug-in. If we decide for having it, would
you be willing to add content on that?
Comments anyone?
Cheers,
Ricardo Balduino
IBM | EPF Committer
*Ana Valente Pereira <apereira@xxxxxxxxxxx>*
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
04/02/2006 04:39 AM
Please respond to
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [epf-dev] Status from 3/30 BUP call with authors
Sorry for this long mail but I will have no access to the internet for
the next 2 weeks and I wont be able to attend the next conference call….
so I will try to resume all my content authoring ideas for contributing
to BUP 1.0 here… you can move to bugzilla what you agree to add and I
will pick up work when I come back
As I told in Bilbao meeting, my experience with the RUP comes from
several years of “small projects “ (teams of 3 to 6 people and involve 3
to 6 months of development effort) … and there are some good practices
that I would like to see in BUP, even in small projects, otherwise I
believe there will be a lot of plug-ins to BUP adding these basic things:
Requirements:
... vision and use cases are not enough in requirements ...even in small
projects:
1) Glossary: if you don’t define project domain terms somewhere the
definition will end-up mixed with the use cases… when needed we also add
a simple domain model to the glossary (this is not big upfront
design…see (http://www.agiledata.org/essays/agileDataModeling.html) …
and sometimes stakeholders express their requirements in these terms
more easily than in use cases (I want a shopping cart) … can we add a
Glossary to BUP?… or at least a chapter to the Vision?
2) Rules: the same for business rules: separate business rules out of
use cases… rules are also requirements that can developed separately …
if they are spread out on use cases they will end up spread out in the
code… can we add a Rule Catalog artifact to BUP or a specific section on
the Supporting Requirements? (I am quoting Scott Ambler again but I know
that he is reading this email list
http://www.agilemodeling.com/artifacts/businessRule.htm) … sometimes
stakeholders don’t care much about reading use cases but they do care
about getting business rules definition right
Architecture
… get stakeholders involved in the architecture (at the system boundaries)
1) GUI Architecture - If we let the developers pick up scenarios and
implement them without some kind of user interface guidelines and global
mechanisms (menus structure,, navigation map … etc) the GUI will be a
mess … even with the prototype … I think that it is missing some kind of
user Interface structuring and guidance … can we add these
responsibility to the architect or analyst?...and discuss it with the
stakeholder along with the prototype?
2) Interface with external Systems – more and more we have to develop
code for systems where the actor is not a person but another system. The
architect should identify these communication interfaces and discuss
them with the stakeholders responsible for those systems …because
usually external systems have to be modified to use the services we are
providing (or vice-versa) this is not a bit discussion on SOA (the
interface can be a file or a stored procedure, for instance) …but it can
lay out the foundation for a SOA plug-in to BUP latter … this is part of
the architecture but we can’t put in on Software Architecture Document
because stakeholders usually don’t read these document … but they need
it…I think that we also need a step on Task: Analyze the Architecture on
this subject (identify external services?)
3) There is nothing on Data Modeling on BUP? (even agile?)
Deployment…there is no deployment discipline? What is the purpose of
making the software if it is not for deploying? …what is the purpose of
Transition Phase in BUP ? it does not have to be a lot of content … I
propose that we consider the minimum:
1) If we have a Build work product on Implementation I would add a
“Release” work product on deployment with some System Requirements,
Installation Instructions and known issues … we have an example on
(http://www.eclipse.org/epf/downloads/downloads.php) …and add a task for
Create Release
best regards
Ana Pereira
Brian Lyons wrote:
> hiho,
>
> On Thursday, 3/30 at 8am PST, there was a conference call on assigning
> ownership to BUP content as we modify and complete the IBM donation
> for the 1.0 launch scheduled for 9/1/2006.
>
> On the call were:
>
> · Steve Adolph, UBC
>
> · Ricardo Balduino, IBM
>
> · Mark Dickson, Xansas/DSDM Consortium
>
> · Chris Doyle, Synergy Plus
>
> · Brian Lyons, Number Six Software, Inc.
>
> · Bruce MacIsaac, IBM
>
> · Jim Ruehl, IBM
>
> · Chris Sibbald, Telelogic
>
> We decided to have each content package in BUP assigned to a committer
> (or – based on duration it is taking – someone on track to be a
> committer). We discussed that the templates package is not really a
> logical separate area, but only broken out for convenience of process
> engineers; each template would be the responsibility of the owner of
> the relevant discipline. In this pass the Process is not the focus.
>
> The assignment of a package does not imply that the individual is
> solely responsible for authoring all the content. The assignment of
> the package is responsibility that the content gets authored.
>
> Based on the participants on the call, the responsible parties are
> shown below. One addition is that we have a pending decision on
> project management because Kirti Vaidya had proclaimed an interest in
> that, but was not on the call.
>
> *Package*
>
>
>
> *Owner*
>
> architecture
>
>
>
> Chris Dickson, Xansas
>
> change_management
>
>
>
> <vacant>
>
> development
>
>
>
> <vacant>
>
> general
>
>
>
> Steve Adolph, UBC
>
> project_management
>
>
>
> Kirti Vaidya, Covansys (pending)
>
> requirements
>
>
>
> Chris Sibbald, Telelogic
>
> test
>
>
>
> Brian Lyons, Number Six Software
>
> Ricardo Balduino of IBM will manage the overall architecture of the
> process. Based on the way EPF Composer works, Ricardo will be
> responsible for managing all relationships between elements. And he is
> responsible for creating any additional elements that will
> subsequently be assigned to reside in a package.
>
> If you are a committer or on your way to becoming one and you have an
> interest in being responsible for cm or development, please reply.
>
> Everyone interested in contributing content should be getting Eclipse
> setup for CVS to access BUP. That is the best way to get the most
> up-to-date content. This is the real-time development repository that
> committers check their work into. Official committers have read-write
> access, but anyone can use it to regularly pull the very latest content.
>
> There will be a conference call on Thursday, 4/6 at 8am PST to discuss
> updates and status of this work. We have a milestone on 4/15 to be
> underway with authoring content and have all elements defined (albeit
> possibly incomplete). As the various guidelines are often driven by
> the detail in the other process elements, we are giving ourselves some
> leeway in not strictly baselining those by that date.
>
> ------------ b
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev