Thanks for reaching out to this group.
I personally think that any extension that community members can provide
on top of the methods captured in EPF are a great value-add for the rest
of the community and always welcome.
I'm not sure I follow though what you
mean by creating a new phase of meta-modeling. Maybe you want to provide
a few more details on what exactly you will be adding on top of OpenUP
- a short document, or short explanation sent to this list.
I'd offer a generic thought on this
in case you are pursuing this effort: try to base your work on the existing
EPF practices. OpenUP is one example of process that can be assembled by
combining practices available in our library. You could try to create an
independent practice for DSM that adds to other practices as needed, or
that stands on its own (in case it makes sense to adopt DSM in isolation).
Either way, you may want to consider
the Method Authoring Method available for anyone in this community as a
way to start thinking how to architect this new practice. Check out this
link:
http://epf.eclipse.org/wikis/mam/index.htm Look for the key scenarios, such as
Authoring a New Practice, etc.
I hope this helps.
Thanks again for your initiative.
Hi,
This is my first post on this newsletter, My name is Miroslaw
Lewandowski, and i'm student at Military University of Technology in Warsaw.
Currently I'm writing my thesis in domain of extending software development
methodology. I'm thinking of extending OpenUP with the concept of Domain
Specific Modeling. Tentatively I think
I will have to make few major changes (maybe even new phase of meta-modeling?)
I would like to ask what are Yours thoughts
about it.