Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Richard Freggi

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
General Board / Re: Step by step Guide
« on: May 19, 2018, 12:34:50 pm »
how you use EA to document requirements depends mostly on how you are going to use the requirements.  There are several good ways to do this...
If you are going to use the requirements to drive UML based software design or system architecture, then the book "Applying use cases" by G. Schneider and J. Winters is more than enough to get you on your way.  It's a very easy read.  Then it will be obvious what to do in EA.
Good luck!

Seems like Release 14 is late, buggy and nobody really asked for it, so it seems to me like it's as Agile as you can get!!!

..... sorry it's been a long nasty week, I'll see myself out...... 

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Low code development
« on: April 26, 2018, 07:26:20 pm »
BPMN is managed by OMG but is not UML... maybe one day OMG will improve the sticky mess of Activity Diagrams by making them more BPMN-like... but for now it's entirely appropriate that BPMN is a small add-on to EA as a simple profile, like ERD data modeling etc.  My 2c

General Board / Re: Aris vs EA for Process Modelling
« on: April 26, 2018, 06:54:23 pm »
Hi Paolo where can I learn more about this clarification service? Sounds interesting!

So I would focus efforts on getting maximum clarity on what your client wants to achieve and how they want to achieve it - then the tool choice should be straightforward.

Yeah... Good luck with that. ;)

Our EA Organisation now offers a "Clarification Service" to help users agree what they are talking about.  It's based on our Onto-Terminological Modelling and the few User Departments that have used it have been very pleased with the results.


Thanks Simon!
I'm interested to learn more about ways to mitigate this, especially the mouse mistaking the shadow for the actual window.
I'm running same resolution on Notebook and monitor (1920x1080 using DisplayPort) and I'm getting the shadow regardless of resolution setting or video input (VGA D-Sub, HDMI, DisplayPort).
My previous Windows 10 image on exactly same hardware did not have this problem (I had to reimage last week due to registry corruption)
Any more ideas I could try?

I have a weird issue on Sparx EA 1310 on Windows 10.
I often run workshops with the diagram in question on an external monitor or projector, and the EA main window with the project explorer, tool box etc. on my notebook screen.
Whenever I am connected to an external monitor or projector, an alias (shadow) appears near the the  window of EA main body and of the diagram; and the mouse sometimes works only on the alias, or only on the actual window.  Essentially I lose mouse control.  This issue occurs only with EA; none of my other programs show this behavior.  I have a screen capture but seems like the 'attach image' function is not working....

Can anyone recommend an EA setting or a Win10 setting that can remove this issue?  It's very disruptive (I have 10 people in a room waiting for me to goof around with the mouse  jumping from one window to its alias.....)  thanks!

General Board / Re: Aris vs EA for Process Modelling
« on: April 26, 2018, 12:30:09 pm »
Hi Uffe - welcome to use my analogy!

Re. the discussion for tool choice, you can follow roughly the steps you would for an application fit-gap analysis in an enterprise architecture engagement.  It really is essentially the same thing. 

There are good methodologies explaining how to do this and one of them - TOGAF - is freely available (you can see all of it on the Open Group website).  Yes it can be done!

General Board / Re: Aris vs EA for Process Modelling
« on: April 25, 2018, 10:39:59 am »
Hello Ian
I think it would boil down to what methodology your client wants to follow and what they want to get from their process models.
We had similar discussions in my company and honestly sometimes it felt like people arguing whether baseball bats or tennis rackets were the best tool... the answer of course depends on what game are we playing?  (In that specific case it turned out that we wanted to play basketball, which made the 'tool war' argument even more ridiculous). 
So I would focus efforts on getting maximum clarity on what your client wants to achieve and how they want to achieve it - then the tool choice should be straightforward.

Bugs and Issues / Re: EA using Wine and ODBC
« on: April 21, 2018, 12:50:48 pm »
I think EA should be cross-platform, what with Win10 being a kludgy mess and Microsoft reorganization moving away from OS-centric to service centric. 

I am concerned that EA is evolving into a more and more complex tool that offers features I don't need instead of a bug-free, highly reliable, highly usable, portable implementation of UML standard.  I can't justify spending any money on EA14 license.   

Sparx folks, if you are listening, how about focusing on bug elimination, x-platform, usability and user interface enhancements instead of adding more and more features?  Plenty of suggestions about these in the user forum!  Thanks!

Yes Paolo I got the names mixed up.  Gotta stop posting before my 2nd cup of coffee in the morning.  Original post edited with correct name (Mats).

Sorry Mats I don't think you can be successful in this one (I'd be interested to know how it works out for you...)
Some considerations:
1. Data does not 'flow', it is queried.  Data flows are a hang-on from 1970s mainframe philosophy that stuck around because people liked the idea although it only has very limited usefulness (a bit like flowcharts).  I don's know if an architecture based on information flows can be efficient/effective/flexible (I'd be interested to learn more about this)
2. Since data is queried / provided by each table/class, each query typically contains a mix of different attributes from different classes / tables / whathaveyou + the query logic.  These are called messages (hello sequence diagram!!!)
3. Can we reconstruct a data model from a sequence diagram?  Yes with some effort and some modeler judgement / experience / assumptions, as long as the messages are between participants (I think a Data Flow Diagram maps poorly on to an interaction/collaboration diagram)

TL;DR:  There be dragons where you are going, methinks.  DAMA website has some good resources about data architecture.

I don't know if it CAN be automated but I would STRONGLY recommend against it.  Creating a physical data model from a logical data model or class diagram is not straightforward, and there are so many factors such as level of denormalization, target RDBMS implementation specifics, data modeler style etc.  A perfectly correct physical data model can be totally different from its perfectly correct logical data model.  Anyone else has a better idea?

The behaviour you described is correct.  The DDL transform works at physical level, meaning it assumes all elements to transform are <<Table>> stereotype classes containing physical attributes.  I think the solution is to generate a physical level class diagram (therefore you must decide what to with your parent class) then run the DDL transform.


I am curious what would total participation look like in Crow's Feet (I.E.) notation?  Or what would a SQL DDL code for total participation look like?

If it's 1:1 as suggested in previous post, it's certainly possible to do with EA but 1:1 is usually a sign of a problem in the data model... probably semantic mistakes or treating an attribute as if it was an entity, or using 2 entities where 1 would be enough.  I'm curious to know... thanks!

General Board / Re: Document a whole Solution
« on: March 02, 2018, 11:39:25 am »
Agreed!  TOGAF content metamodel really good, Zachman framework is similar and probably a little easier to use.

Geert, if you use UML for everything you will have a fully integrated model, with consistent elements and artifacts from contextual down to physical and out of context... easier, more efficient and effective than mixing multiple notations.  IMHO UML works even better at contextual-conceptual-logical than at physical level (UML was originally developed to talk to people, and a failed attempt to shoehorn it into a programming language has damaged it quite a lot...)

Willeygi, Sparx has plug-ins for TOGAF and Zachman; you can find full TOGAF documentation online at the Open Group website and there's plenty of Zachman info and examples in the web. 

As for the model organisation, I prefer abstraction layer before domain

The TOGAF content meta-model is by far the best part of TOGAF and is very useful for structuring "content".

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5