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 - Paolo F Cantoni

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 459
1
No. KP was quoting me. So I wrote, in effect: "I agree with what he quoted (he said) me as saying a few years ago (I said)." And yes, I have changed the words.

Happy every day everybody.
Isn't English wonderful...

Paolo

2
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Merge components
« on: December 13, 2019, 04:50:43 pm »

That would really solve a lot of my problems. Do you know if it's been implemented finally?
lol
While it may have some challenges some basic ideas might be for an entity, or for a relationship (but not a package):
* aggregate notes, files, and similar
* aggregate tags (if different)
* move relationships from the object selected be replaced to the master object
* merge any relationships that are the same (sameness to be defined)
* update diagrams
might be trickier for classifiers and lots of other things
We've done some work on defining (and processing) Semantic Equivalence of Arcs

Paolo

3
Yeah. Wot he said I said.
No... It should have been "wot 'e said, I say"  When you write and we read; it is in the present tense...  ;)

Happy Friday everyone!

Paolo

4
Code: [Select]
The notion of hiding part of the model is the antithesis of modellingI cannot agree more and will go further, it is the antithesis of architecture. But it is becoming more common as too much profit is at stake.

It isn't the antithesis at all.  The purpose of architecture is to deliver business outcomes.  Often there are very important business reasons for people not knowing things, either for commercial or regulatory reasons.

The idea that an architect is some special person who gets to lift every lid and peer in is nothing but sheer arrogance.
I intended to write "The notion of hiding part of the model is seen as the antithesis of modelling"
As can be surmised from my original post here, I agree that certain parts of a common model may need to be less visible than others.

The question is not whether an architect (or user) can see that part (since somebody is modelling it) but whether all architects (or users) can see it (and at what time).
Often (again, frequently, for HR reasons) a part of a model may be "embargoed" until a certain date and then can be released "into the wild".

Paolo

5
With regards to how to structure the repository, it depends on your needs. If your projects are all independent and are not contributing to documenting or creating/transforming an existing common and visible architecture, then you are fine with individual project files or databases. However, if these projects are contributing to documenting and creating/transforming a common and visible architecture, you probably need to have a common repository.

It's not determined by the technology.  It's determined by business rules around who should be able to view modelling of the future.  Especially where there are HR implications.
+1 (my emphasis).
Where people often say about certain behaviours etc. "It's all about the money"...
When you analyse model visibility and the reasons advanced for stopping universal visibility, it almost always comes to "It's about the HR implications".

Otherwise, the notion of hiding parts of the model is the antithesis of modelling.

My experience has been the same as GBs.

Paolo

6
Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / v15.1 Glossary improvements
« on: December 10, 2019, 06:18:14 pm »
The v15.1 Glossary improvements look very interesting, but it is not clear if they have solved the problem of term forms - Singular vs Plural, tenses etc.

Is anybody able to shed any light on this?

My experience says that you need multiple terms pointing to the same definition, but that doesn't seem to have been done (except by brute force - physically duplicating the definition for each term form).

TIA,
Paolo


7
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Dynamic Legends: text color support
« on: December 09, 2019, 10:25:30 am »
All properties are equal, ut some are more equal than others...

+1

Paolo

8
User interface/interaction design 101...

+1

Paolo

9
Richard, have you tried resetting IDs?  In the past transferring to/from an MS Access file could leave the IDs in an anomalous state.  We always compacted and repaired the file after the transfer to reset the IDS.  Now, EA is supposed to do that automatically.  However, for a Firebird file you may still need to reset the IDs via the appropriate menu option.

HTH,
Paolo

10
General Board / Re: Templates and report specifications
« on: December 05, 2019, 11:24:14 am »
Thanks, Geert, report packages and master documents were not only the answer that I was looking for but as I wrote elsewhere to provide the means of segregating the documentation from the actual models. It is a very elegant way of placing the documentation and the models in separate branches of the repository. As a result, this allows the creation of a documentation view which differs from the actual structure of your models.
I couldn't agree more  :)

Geert
+1

Paolo

11
General Board / Re: Repository work process for common object catalouges
« on: December 04, 2019, 10:53:38 am »
Hi Steen,

A few questions to establish your context so we can provide appropriate advice.  By the way, there were some discussions recently on similar topics so search the forum (within the last 3 months).

Is this an enterprise-wide repository or more narrow (e.g. product based)?

Currently, when a project needs to "clone" (the term is used generically) a production item (for example, in order to change it), how is that achieved?  How is the cloned item (doppelganger) linked back to its "master"?

Do you have a Control Board for the Production Trunk at present?

Paolo

12
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Database builder - differences report
« on: December 02, 2019, 10:34:01 am »
We are now really starting to use the database builder in EA to track the changes in the database with each release.

The option to compare the database model with the actual database is really useful and helps us a lot, but I can't seem to find a way to create an offline export of the differences.
I would like to put them in excel or something so we can go over the list and validate each one of them.

The ability to copy/paste from the grid in EA to excel would already be sufficient.

I'll send in a feature request.

Geert
We'd like the same. Should I also send in a feature request?

Paolo

13
General Board / Re: Where did "instance" go?
« on: December 02, 2019, 10:32:07 am »
P.S. (3): Somehow, this reminds of W.V. Quine concept of radical translation, whereupon a linguist encounters a community whose language is completely unrelated to any language familiar to the linguist and the linguist has to attempt to fully translate the unfamiliar language. We are linguists attempting to translate a technical language to plain English and discussing how different technical languages are to be translated into each other. I think the later is a good exercise. I always have some resistance to the former because technical languages are there to express something non-technical languages cannot express.

I couldn't disagree with this point more. One of the goals of ArchiMate was to render technical descriptions in plain language (I'm unsure if this was meant to be English or Dutch).  The translation problem isn't because ArchiMate is an unknown or alien language, it's because it's the equivalent of operating with the understanding of vocabulary and grammar of a three-year-old.
I think Glassboy has "hit the nail on the head".  It's what prompted my post last week.  To say that business-level items don't have properties of features is a non-sense to me.  It's a simplistic (NOT simple, TOO simple) view.

Also, the notion that you have to separate the structural properties from the behaviour properties is suspect.   I have actor "X" and I have a business object "data about actor X" (if I haven't misunderstood) seems stupid to me.

Paolo

14
General Board / Re: Where did "instance" go?
« on: November 29, 2019, 10:37:26 am »



Just reiterating that, for the present, I'm NOT interested in the elements in a repository (UML or ArchiMate things), but merely the language we use to converse.  I don't know where Modesto or Rhys are located (I suspect the UK), but they and I (as examples) have never met and need to be able to communicate unambiguously using only the written word.  Having (as per the Helsinki Principle) agreed on our terminology/ontology, we can then look at how we put these things in a repository.

Previously Modesto said:
"ArchiMate is a name only modelling language, the ArchiMate specification does not mention attributes and operations anywhere when describing the metamodel. As a result, no features are inherited when specialising in ArchiMate because there are no features to be inherited."

I agree with his statement (about ArchiMate) however, it seems to me that the concept of a "name only modelling language" is a non-sequitur!

One can't create falsifiable models when, as in Alice in Wonderland[2], a "word can mean whatever I want it to mean".  There need to be more formal differentiation mechanisms than just the name, otherwise, I can say BMW X3 is a specialization of BMW X1!

So, let us accept that the things we are modelling can be characterised by their features.  Features are defined by their nature (Structural and Behavioural) and by the characteristic they describe.  Thus a structural feature for a motor car might be body type, for a bird a behavioural feature might be migration behaviour.

Some things are specializations of other things.  In modelling, we normally associate specialization with "inheritance" of features.  In order to be an inheritor, the specialized item must have a different feature set than the more general item.  Cetacean is a special form of Mammal.  Hierarchies of this type of inheritance are classification schemes.  Classification schemes have depth and the item can only be one classification in one scheme.  However, schemes can be orthogonal.

But colloquially, we also observe a different type of specialization, that of restriction.  A completed order is a special form of an order.  Non-modellers would certainly say they were talking about specialization.  Restrictions are Categorisations - shallow and overlapping.

Thoughts?

Paolo

[2] Alice in Wonderland: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

15
Bugs and Issues / Re: Tagged value notes in 15
« on: November 28, 2019, 10:29:12 am »
The options they control are either enabled or disabled

From a developer's point of view, enabled and disabled denote whether a control will allow user input, with disabled controls usually being "greyed out". Is that what you are referring to here?
Yes, KP,  I should have been more careful. 

We need to distinguish between the state of the visual control and the state of the underlying variable controlled by the control.

I'll amend my terminology.

Thanks for the catch...  I'm always trying to be as clear as I can - for my own sanity if nothing else...

Paolo

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 459