[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ormf-dev] Moving forward with the model
- From: "Ingenieurbüro Ponikwar (ORMF)" <ormf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:29:59 +0100
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- User-agent: Thunderbird 220.127.116.11 (Windows/20081209)
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.
Barbara Rosi-Schwartz schrieb:
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!... :-)
On 2 Feb 2009, at 15:29, Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
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
Wolfgang, Veit, are you willing to take on central role with this?
Is anyone else interested in playing devil's advocate?
ormf-dev mailing list
ormf-dev mailing list