| Hi Wolfgang,
Straight off let me say that your last remark is right on the mark and I see these model conversations as a stimulus for us to be exploring just that.
For the rest, I think that you have missed the point of B.'s post.
Absolutely ORMF does not want to go down the path of a building yet another "Open Document Management Framework". If it was, then I also will join you in dropping it :-)
So let me try to state this simply and clearly: ORMF is about providing a framework that allows adopters to easily build tools for:
- Elucidating requirements
- Managing these requirements, f.i. creating relationships
- Preparing various standard and ad hoc reports (this includes publication)
Requirements are at the heart of what we are interested in working with!
What B. was trying to communicate is that (in our opinion) the most important aspect of the model we create is that it is able to support the above functionality. We fail to see why it is essential to be able to map the HPP model onto ours as long as the practitioner of HPP are able to successfully build a system on top of ORMF that can capture and work with the requirements in a fashion that is consistent with the HPP practices. If we are being short sighted, then please give us some examples of what we are missing. Truly Wolfgang, we are open to learning.
As far as why ORMF, the main driving force for B. and I when we started is because it was our experience indicated that there were no reasonably available tools that could capture, maintain and manage a rich set of requirements in a reasonably straightforward manner. Either one used spreadsheets or a tool like to Requisite Pro that provided fairly easy organisational support or a tool such as Word that allowed copious content, but were maintenance of any type of relationships were a nightmare. We believe this is still true today.
As far as being able to link with modelling tools, yes this is ambitious. We have always dreamed of that as supported functionality, but I do not believe it achievable today. Maybe in the future.
Joel
PS - I really think these conversations should move back to the Wiki. On 3 Feb 2009, at 17:59, Ingenieurbüro Ponikwar (ORMF) wrote: Hi Barbara, I have read your comment and decided to reply on the somewhat not-so-public mailing list rather than on the Wiki. Firstly, I think I get the point - and this is, where I believe I am in agreement with you. ORMF shall support the requirements process generally speaking. What makes me wonder is how you have stated your arguments. I get the impression, it is not "requirements" that matter, but simply the information processing activity. Simply put, if I take you verbatim, we should rename ORMF to "Open Document Management Framework", since we are no longer dealing with the particularities of requirements, but of some general information items that need to be collected, sorted, and, finally, published. What made much of the value of ORMF, the fact that we want to support requirements, seems gone now. But maybe I misunderstood your comment. The other point that I have is, if we drop any model of requirements, that is, the ability to treat them any special, the question arises "why ORMF at all?" There are many tools on the market that deal with information publishing and also many that deal with text requirements. There is no feature or ability ORMF would offer (if I follow your arguments) beyond any of those tools. So ORMF is but another "wheel" being invented, only this time it's for free? Or a more beautiful one? Much of my motivation to contribute to ORMF was the idea of being able to better integrate models and text requirements than other tools currently offer. I understand this is a very ambitious aim. If we now drop this objective for whichever reason (or if I must now learn that it only existed in my head) I would very much want to understand what the real objectives of ORMF are. If it only reimplements functionality available from other tools, why? Is it to have it for free? Is it, because you are unhappy with what other tools provide? If it is the "free" thing, well, I would drop it. There are reasonable tools on the market for few hundred Euros that can do this pretty well, so why bother? Any commercial project would be able to afford them. And non-profit projects can get free licenses from many vendors as well. If it is certain deficiencies of existing tools, we must have a clear understanding of what we want to improve or do differently. In other words, I guess its high time to write down the requirements on ORMF itself, isn't it? 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
_______________________________________________ ormf-dev mailing list ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxhttps://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev
|
