| [epf-dev] Discipline Text style |
|
hiho, We should discuss the appropriate structure of the text for
the Brief Descriptions of the disciplines. In response to bug 168723 I was looking
to add a Brief Description to the Implementation discipline and I wasn’t
too psyched with the styles that we are using. Some of the discipline
descriptions start with “This discipline defines the minimal tasks
required to…” (requirements, test). Some start with “This
discipline explains how to…” (A&D, CM). At this point the
published process does not have a Brief Description for PM or Implementation. At a metamodel level Tasks can be in multiple disciplines,
but our OpenUP convention has had each Task is in one discipline. Each Guidance
element can be assigned to multiple disciplines. Reference Workflows can
be assigned to multiple disciplines. We tend to mentally organize roles in
line with disciplines, but that is not strictly the case. So what does a discipline do? Does it define
tasks? Does it explain how to do something? Or – since it is mostly
about methodology rather than process – does it provide techniques?
------------- b |