[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ormf-dev] Moving forward with the model

Hi Barbara,

just some additional thoughts on our discussion.
I get the impression from your comment on the Wiki that reporting and publication are major concerns of you and thus an important part of ORMF. I must admit, my experience is different.
Yes, I know document export from, lets say, DOORS, is a pain in the ass. But how is this handled? Every company I have worked for so far and who have been using DOORS had one or two specialists (or even temporarily hired people) to write proper export scripts and all the others simply used them. End of the story. Nobody cared about how painful it was for the specialist to get it right, everybody simply used the results. The same applies to reporting. It is done once and simply used afterwards.
If this is the focus of ORMF, we might not get that much attention we expect. Ordinary requirements engineers would never see any benefits in ORMF, since in any larger company it is not their job to technically configure some tool to create a report according to the company standards - their job is, to specify what must go in and tell the "toolsmith" to write the script.


What I have found in the past on the requirements frontier is mainly a lack of ability to properly capture and model requirements, or, to be more specific, to support the production of system requirements with modeling to enhance understanding and provide context. To improve on this, we clearly need to have some understanding of what we are talking about, which, in some form, is the metamodel.
If we want to be very generic, we should take a look at the very simplistic model of OSEE. Everything is an artefact and can have relations. Period. Everything else is built upon this. While this allows to build almost anything, the support one gets from the framework is equally limited. Do we want to go the same route?


At the risk of annoying everyody, I must repeat my statement from the previous mail: It is high time to put down the requirements on ORMF itself. Even if it is only for ourselves to build a common understanding of what we're after.

Kind regards,
Wolfgang

Barbara Rosi-Schwartz schrieb:
Hi guys.

As announced by Joel, I have now posted a comment on the wiki. It is in the form of a new discussion point titled "Stepping back in order to move forward", appended at the end of the trail.

Replies please!... :-)
B.

On 2 Feb 2009, at 15:29, Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:

Hi,

B. and I over the next month have a nice hunk of time that we can dedicate to ORMF, about a 100 hours each, so we hope to make some real solid progress on the model. At the moment B. is composing a long over due response to the Wiki Requirements page.

We would like to propose that Wolfgang, Veit and B. spearhead the modelling analysis and design effort. In the meanwhile, I, and anyone who who like to join me, works towards proving (or disproving) that the proposed model can actually be utilised to fulfil the elucidation, management and reporting goals of ORMF. Shall we say play devil's advocate to challenge the real world feasibility of the proposed model.

Wolfgang, Veit, are you willing to take on central role with this?

Is anyone else interested in playing devil's advocate?

Many thanks,
Joel



_______________________________________________
ormf-dev mailing list
ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev


------------------------------------------------------------------------

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