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 - Glassboy

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 92
31
PCS General Board / Re: How to Access WebEa with internet browser
« on: February 07, 2020, 10:05:11 am »
You can drop a HTML export into a folder on a web server.

32
General Board / Re: Open LDAP / Active Directory modelling
« on: February 05, 2020, 08:02:40 am »
I use class diagrams.  You could probably build the whole Active Directory class/object model if you wanted, but I generally work just with small subsets.  For example mapping attributes from AD user to the Cisco Call Manager user.

Some of models have been fairly large in the past as user attributes flow to most line of business applications.

33
Actually pondering this, "motor vehicle" is probably an externality to the ontology.  It's a set of rules - within a particular jurisdiction - that allows anything with a motor to be given a licence to operated on a public right of way.

Which explains why so much of the conversation to this point has involved a categorical mistake.
Interesting comment and thanks for bringing it up, there is some externality to this ontology. It is possible that in certain jurisdictions an electric bicycle or a motorised scooter could be categorised as motor vehicles.

Anything with a motor using a road is generally captured under the legislation.  There's generally specific rules on bicycles and scooters.  However things like ride-on lawn mowers and motorised sofas do run into trouble all the time.

You may have thought I was being flippant, but I worked for central government for a long time and it is a really common to see problems with data models because people have assumed a common language definition not a legal definition.  For example people might assume a building is something with a roof, whereas the law regards it as something capable of bearing a load.

No business or industry is free of regulation and at some stage assumptions will bite hard.

34
Actually pondering this, "motor vehicle" is probably an externality to the ontology.  It's a set of rules - within a particular jurisdiction - that allows anything with a motor to be given a licence to operated on a public right of way.

Which explains why so much of the conversation to this point has involved a categorical mistake.

35
"A Motor Vehicle has n Wheels(s) - <<Class>>Motor Vehicle related to a <<Class>>Wheel with an Association"

That's just a modeling fault that should be corrected as the model evolves.  Obviously not all motor vehicles have wheels.  The association between motor vehicle and wheel is wrong, it belongs to a child (possibly fairly down the hierarchy) of motor vehicle.

But ALL motor vehicles have a motor.  So association between motor vehicle and motor (motor type, power generated, efficiency etc.) would be a good association at the motor vehicle parent class.

"motor vehicle" isn't your parent class.  Vehicle is your parent class.  Motor is also only one type of power source for your vehicle.  It's not actually that complex an ontology.

36
But ALL motor vehicles have a motor.  So association between motor vehicle and motor (motor type, power generated, efficiency etc.) would be a good association at the motor vehicle parent class.

If I take the motor out of a motor vehicle (commonly done) does it magically become something else?

37
General Board / Re: Length of traceability
« on: January 13, 2020, 02:34:50 pm »
Infinite loops can be a worry as you've noted, but not a big one -- it can be handled in code.

It's always funny when the protection in code fails :-)

Manager:  Why is everything running slowly.
Minion:  We have an infinite loop.
Manager:  When will it finish?
Minion:  Never, its infinite.
Manager:  Well, can't you turn it off now?
Minion:  What, our main line of business application?

38
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Merge components
« on: December 16, 2019, 10:47:34 am »
I don't need a merge so much as a move relationships function.

39
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...  ;)

"wot they said" would be far more inclusive.  8)

40
Quote
I can put the link to it on this thread once I've published the source on Git hub. In the meantime I've published the MDG files last year here https://github.com/EASunshine/Sparx-EA. Try them out and if you want the source models that created them let me know.
Nice Sunchine :) I take a look.

I tested the EA 15.1 Beta Archimate 3.1 but I dont like ValueStream symbol as it does not suport streatching out with nice looking arrows as Archis implementation does.

I think the weakest thing about the built-in MDG is the shapescript.

41
I did not modify the quote and your suggestion I did is offensive. I will try to give you the benefit of the doubts and assume you did not read it, just glance it.

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

The quote still reads “the notion of hiding parts of the model is the antithesis of modelling”. If Paolo thinks he now needs to say “is seen as the antithesis ...”, only he knows why.

You can see clearly in your quote that you did.  When you remove words from a sentence you change the context.

42
As there are several flaws in Sparx own Archimate MDG, I wonder how much effort there is to make one?
I Have have suspicion that severel of you out there have done that :)
What time effort and/or what whould the cost be to buy one with all the Metamodel & Profile diagrams for us to expand & change by me and my staff.

PS) As one suggested here before, what a advantage there whould be with an Open Source MDG for Archimate :)

I think it's Sunshine who has a complete one of his own (I struggle to keep the remember the non de plumes of the locals I know the real names of).  he's shared it with me the the past.  He might be up for putting it in a Git repo.

43
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.

I didn't have a problem with your statement.  Modesto modified your statement in the quote.  My main issue is the assumption that the needs of projects or architects are more important than the needs of the business.

44
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.

45
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, the 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. 

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 92