Author Topic: Add Diagram Window showing groups of diagram types (2 levels tree browser)  (Read 1340 times)

adepreter

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 128
  • Karma: +2/-2
    • View Profile
In a diagram profile, how can we group/categorize existing diagram types so that they appear in a tree browser a bit like in Archimate 3?

So that, with a perspective properly set, the Add Diagram window shows for example:

Vision
- Corporate Objectives
- Domain Goals
- ...
People
- Organization Landscape
- ...
Application
- Application Landscape
- Application Interactions
...

Eve

  • EA Administrator
  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
  • Karma: +65/-7
    • View Profile
Eve

support@sparxsystems.com

adepreter

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 128
  • Karma: +2/-2
    • View Profile
Thank you Eve,

Is it possible to create these views without constraints on the possible element connections?
Indeed I think the view is not the right place to express metamodel constraints, except in the case where your view represents code or configuration items.

For Strategy and Enterprise Architecture you need one single metamodel applied to one single language (not one metamodel per view).
In the toolbox you need to show the usual elements and connectors.
But one should not prevent users from adding, sometimes, some additonal elements and connectors that are not usual in that kind of view.

Also it is better to implement the language metamodel using the language itself.
So it can be used both for
- Metamodel documentation
- Dynamic model validation
For example this language metamodel is used both for dynamic model validation and documentation.
http://www.labnaf.one/guidance/index.html?guid=ECF05395-8B5B-4973-AA4B-27E521AA5D30

Eve

  • EA Administrator
  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
  • Karma: +65/-7
    • View Profile
Is it possible to create these views without constraints on the possible element connections?
That's what this two level tree in the new diagram dialog means. It provides the specialized versions of the base diagram types. You could still use this functionality to achieve the result you want by exposing all the same types. If it's the same diagram type and you don't want to provide a constrained list, what are you trying to do?

Indeed I think the view is not the right place to express metamodel constraints, except in the case where your view represents code or configuration items.

For Strategy and Enterprise Architecture you need one single metamodel applied to one single language (not one metamodel per view).
There's still a single metamodel. The difference is that they are filtered views intended to provide a subset of the functionality, a concept that is "REQUIRED" for multiple languages.

Also it is better to implement the language metamodel using the language itself.
So it can be used both for
- Metamodel documentation
- Dynamic model validation
For example this language metamodel is used both for dynamic model validation and documentation.
http://www.labnaf.one/guidance/index.html?guid=ECF05395-8B5B-4973-AA4B-27E521AA5D30
The only advantage that I see to that is if you're trying to use that to explain to users who can't grasp the abstraction of defining a language. It may be okay for a limited set of connectors between concrete stereotypes when you only need to detail one language.

The way we define a metamodel is based on the language used to do the exact same thing in the UAF specification. It's already used by EA to:
  • Specify a quicklinker (of all valid connectors), also both dynamic and on demand validation of valid connectors
  • Restrict classifiers for objects, types for parts/ports/pins (and allow dropping of those things in reverse)
  • Restrict types on an information flow
  • etc. I think it's all in the documentation
Eve

support@sparxsystems.com

adepreter

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 128
  • Karma: +2/-2
    • View Profile
Hi Eve,
Thank you for your explanations.

Regarding requirements:
It must be simple.
My users want one single language that merges (not "integrates") standards.
It is one MDG created from scratch.
The quick links and the validation are generated from the metamodel expressed in the single language that everybody knows and shares.
I speak English French and Dutch but I am not trying to communicate using several languages in the same sentence :-)

Regarding the hierarchy of diagram types:
I must be simple.
I implemented the "several diagram types on several diagrams" approach as explained on this page from the Sparx doc.
https://sparxsystems.com/enterprise_architect_user_guide/15.0/modeling/custom_diagram_types.html

However there is a bug in Sparx (see ref 19072645 where I also illustrate in a Word doc the structure of diagram types): When you create a diagram on a page that has a name that is different from the name of the MDG, then the "From" part of the quick links is lost.

Do you have any work around to suggest?

Thank you,
Alain
« Last Edit: July 23, 2019, 05:30:47 pm by adepreter »