[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [epf-dev] EPF Metamodel extensions
|
Hello Onno.
Are saying that it would be actually
better to use Custom Categories to model Practices for now? The only
other difference left is the text attributes, right?
Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.
______________________________________________________________
PETER HAUMER, Dr. rer. nat.
Rational Method Composer | Eclipse Process Framework
Rational Software | IBM Software Group
Tel.: +1 (408) 463-5096
______________________________________________________________
"Straaten, Onno van
der" <onno.van.der.straaten@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
10/02/2007 03:55
|
Please respond to
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
|
To
| "Eclipse Process Framework Project
Developers List" <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
| <epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
Subject
| RE: [epf-dev] EPF Metamodel extensions |
|
Hi Peter,
I think I understand the rationale,
but shouldn't we have the 'back links' checkbox feature for the referenced
elements of a practice as well?
We are recording the scope and
status of our CMMI compliance (and compliancy for other models) using 'practices'.
A logical choice and the CMMI plugin from IBM Rational also uses practices.
So now we know how CMMI Level
3 compliant our processes are, but another use for this information is
in projects, we also expect some projects to perform the process on that
level, and so in that case we think it is very usefull to be able to see
that certain elements play a role in realizing certain practices.
Best Regards,
Onno
From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Haumer
Sent: donderdag 27 september 2007 22:07
To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
Cc: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List; epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [epf-dev] EPF Metamodel extensions
Hello JJ.
Check out this thread for a discussion on the rationale for the Practice
guidance kind:
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/forums/dw_thread.jsp?forum=1078&thread=140649&message=13887190&cat=24&q=practice#13887190
I think the Custom Category approach will work. In EPF Composer 1.2
you have now a check box called "publish this category with the categorized
elements". When you tick these then your categories will appear
on your work product pages. Check out the "What's New in EPFC 1.2"
presentation recording on the EPF homepage for more details.
Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.
______________________________________________________________
PETER HAUMER, Dr. rer. nat.
Rational Method Composer | Eclipse Process Framework
Rational Software | IBM Software Group
Tel.: +1 (408) 463-5096
______________________________________________________________
"Jean-Jacques Dubray"
<jdubray@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
09/27/2007 12:56
|
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] EPF Metamodel extensions |
|
Bruce:
thanks, I do have an additional question regarding the topic, it looks
like I can define a "practice" as a guidance item. Within a practice,
I can reference a role, so far so good, I can define a RACI practice, which
contains Responsible, Accountable... practices.
However, I cannot reference a practice from a Work Product Guidance. yet
in the help file it says in the Guidance Relationships section (see table)
that a practice can be referenced by a work product, task and role (which
makes sense to me).
In the text below it says: Practice has a relationship to these elements,
not from them. Why is that? that does not make complete sense to me. Assuming
this is logical, how come, I cannot associate a practice to any other guidance
type (for instance: concept). I should be able to define a RACI concept
(per work product) and then associate Practices elements that attaches
roles to it.
I also tried to use the custom category route which allows me to define
a CC with my RACI practice. I can then go to work product and associate
it with this CC. However, when I preview the work product it does not give
me a link to the CC.
I am out of luck.
It looks to me that the relationship between work products and role is
incomplete.
thanks,
JJ-
On 9/25/07, Bruce Macisaac <bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi JJ,
Currently the EPF metamodel is quite strict, although we've had discussions
about allowing user extensions (like user-defined guidance types and role
assignment types
to support RACI).
In the meantime you can put such information in a table, as described in
the following Rational Edge article by Mark Lines http://www.
ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/feb07/lines/index.html?S_TACT=105AGX15&S_CMP=EDU
Another workaround (credit to Margaret Hedstrom for this idea) - you could
create a plug-in that has a contributing work product for every work product
in your library, and add the RACI information as text to the "key
considerations" field.
For example, if for the Vision work product you want Architect and Stakeholder
roles to be consulted, and Tester and Developer to be informed, then
you could add the following text to a contributing Vision work product.
Consulted:
- Role: Architect
- Role: Stakeholder
Informed:
- Role: Tester
- Role: Developer
Bruce MacIsaac
Manager - RUP/OpenUP Content Team
bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: (408)463-5140
not sure this is the correct place to pose this question but I am evaluating
EPF for our needs and I ran into a snag. I can't find a place to associate
our RACI roles to a work product (responsible, accountable, consulted and
informed). I found a way to associate a role to a work product via a responsible
association.
Is there anyways I could expand EPF's metamodel to add an accountable,
consulted and informed category in the role's work product tab?
thanks,
JJ-_______________________________________________
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
--
Jean-Jacques Dubray
425-445-4467 _______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by
the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential
information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied,
disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended
recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and
all copies and inform the sender. Thank you._______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
