Author Topic: Allow Source & Target Dropdown in Roles to access Operations as well  (Read 671 times)

Paolo F Cantoni

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 5882
  • Karma: +71/-79
  • Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
    • View Profile
Please allow Source & Target Dropdown in the arc's Roles page to access Operations as well as Attributes for (any arc type).

In these days of complex systems modelling, being able to access a Service object's operations and link to them in the arc in the same way as Attributes would be MOST beneficial (for example for the ArchiMate Serving relationship.

Reported,
Paolo
Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
... Therefore, aim for consistency; in the expectation of achieving correctness....
-Semantica-
Helsinki Principle Rules!

Simon M

  • EA Administrator
  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 6200
  • Karma: +47/-5
    • View Profile
The Roles are page is specific to attributes because it's created for associations, which UML specifies to have a collection of Properties (ie. Attributes) as the ends. Extending this to operations doesn't make sense from a UML point of view. It would be more appropriate to use the existing link to element feature functionality.
Simon

support@sparxsystems.com

Paolo F Cantoni

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 5882
  • Karma: +71/-79
  • Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
    • View Profile
The Roles are page is specific to attributes because it's created for associations, which UML specifies to have a collection of Properties (ie. Attributes) as the ends. Extending this to operations doesn't make sense from a UML point of view. It would be more appropriate to use the existing link to element feature functionality.
I understand the Roles page is there for Attributes (from basic UML).  If you like, I'm asking for another page that has the same functionality but allows you to specify operations.  I also understand that this is in addition to UML, but what has that "got to do with the price of eggs"?

We're doing it manually for non-association relationships. But making sure we've correctly spelled things and, even if we have, keeping them in sync with the operations themselves is problematic.  Allowing us to directly select from the list would be more appropriate.  I don't think there's a Use Case that says for a specific relationship type, I'd want to display both the attribute and the operation.

As I said, we can enter them manually, so why not let us be more consistent...   ;)

BTW, the question is actually about displaying the name on the diagram, not about linking (in the link to element feature way).  If you don't display the features on a particular diagram, the relationship loses the "pointer" to the feature involved.
Paolo

[Edit:  I just checked if the Role tracks the Attribute and it doesn't so the question is (effectively) moot!  Is there any point in submitting a feature request to make the Roles directly reference (as opposed to cloning on creation) the Feature?]
« Last Edit: May 25, 2017, 09:59:46 am by Paolo F Cantoni »
Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
... Therefore, aim for consistency; in the expectation of achieving correctness....
-Semantica-
Helsinki Principle Rules!

qwerty

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 8972
  • Karma: +136/-124
  • I'm no guru at all
    • View Profile
Hmm. As I see it, the dropdown showing attributes in the roles is just contra-productive. This will lead to definition of an association with role plus an attribute which actually are the same thing. But one should have either attribute or association, not both.

q.

Paolo F Cantoni

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 5882
  • Karma: +71/-79
  • Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
    • View Profile
Hmm. As I see it, the dropdown showing attributes in the roles is just contra-productive. This will lead to the definition of an association with role plus an attribute which actually are the same thing. But one should have either attribute or association, not both.

q.
Yes, conceptually they are just two renderings of the same concept.  It's an example of my "same semantics, different syntax" concept.  However the technology doesn't support that.  Increasingly we are finding the need to implement the same semantics in mutliple ways and we are creating mechaisms to keep all the renderings anf values in synch.

Paolo
Inconsistently correct systems DON'T EXIST!
... Therefore, aim for consistency; in the expectation of achieving correctness....
-Semantica-
Helsinki Principle Rules!