Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Eclipse Projects » OSEE » Re: Proposal Comments
Re: Proposal Comments [message #3477] Thu, 27 March 2008 20:38 Go to next message
Joel Rosi-Schwartz is currently offline Joel Rosi-SchwartzFriend
Messages: 624
Registered: July 2009
Location: London. England
Senior Member
On 2008-03-18 14:00:20 +0000, bengarbers@gmail.com (Ben Garbers) said:

> -I viewed your tutorial and noticed that you has a Useme server. How
> do you set this up? This was the same thing that I ran into with my
> capstone project where I created a Project Management Eclipse Plugin
> that would store employee tasks / documents (like requirements, design
> documents, etc) within a database. The problem I had with this is that
> if an independent user wants to use your software they have to setup
> this database server and point to it. To get around this I was going
> to treat each task as a file or each requirement as a file of which the
> user can check into a code repository like CVS or Subversion. I notice
> that within the proposal their is a diagram of the functional
> architecture where web services is used and a backend database. This
> again I think could instead be CVS, etc. where a person using ORMF
> wouldn't be dependent on setting up a server.

We considered the CVS approach early on in the project and ended up
rejecting it because it would be too complex (if not impossible) to
keep fine grained document referencing in place, and because we do no
think that CVS/SVN is a suitable interface for non technical users. The
user profile for requirements tools clearly has many BA types who we
think would be scared off by CVS.

In the end one has to pick the audience they are addressing, make the
appropriate compromises and accept that no [useful] tool suits all.

Much of this is now changing. As you may have noticed (see thread on
newsgroup), this week we announced that we are forming a collaboration
with the OSEE project. This means that we will be re-architecting ORMF
to sit on top of their framework. This includes the OSEE server which
is a lightweight OSGI server built on top of Equinox and a database.
This is a much more approachable server option then a full J5EE server.
I had already been considering migrating to OSGI, so I very pleased
that is already part of the OSEE architecture.

> -Your requirements specification is use case centric where my
> requirements specification is based off of IEEE 1988 Format.
> Additionally, within my requirements editor I have the capability of
> measuring estimated time to do development process tasks vs. actuals.
> For example, I require a user to estimate from a specific requirement
> how long it is going to take an individual to do design documentation,
> implementation and testing. I then compare the individuals estimates
> to the different theoretical models such as Function Point Analysis and
> DeMarcos Model. Additionally, during the development process I also
> get actuals from implementation, testing, etc. I then can compare
> these values to the estimates which gives the project manager an idea
> of how the project is doing. I would not expect this in ORMF. Just
> informing you what I did within the Napkins Requirements Editor. You
> can actually download the Napkins Requirements Editor to see what I am
> talking about. It is located at
> http://www.napkins-development-tools.com/NapkinsDynamicWebsi te/napkinsR.do

The
>
work that you have done around measuring estimated time and
capture/comparison of actuals is one of the areas that really excited
Barbara and me. This is definitely part of the vision we have had, but
we have not even started considering what would be required. I beg to
differ with you that these features are not pertinent to use cases. The
type of estimation may be different, but the concepts are very much
relevant.

I would like to emphasise that handing use cases was only the starting
point for our vision. We envisioned a framework that could be easily
extended to handle a wide variety of document types and standards. I
should also mention that OSEE already handles unstructured
requirements. Take a look at their website
<http://www.eclipse.org/osee/> to get a feel for what they have
achieved to date.

> -This is more an FYI but there is a company that created an eclipse
> plug-in for work items
> ( http://www.polarion.org/index.php?page=features&project= fasttrack)
> These work items are checked into CVS or Subversion then. There is no
> server dependency at all.

Thanks I will have a look.

> -I think that 'smart links' may be confusing initally. After I read
> them and saw the demo they made more sense.

Where was you initial confusion from? The proposal? I would like to
review the source to see of we can do a better job of describing it
upfront.

> -When I presented my napkins requirements editor a couple of things
> everyone said were required when writing requirements; spell checker, a
> subscription service to subscribe to a requirement that might change
> and a way to view the requirements document in pdf or word format.
> Note that my napkins requirements editor has a spell checker and a way
> to extract the document to pdf and view it as an html file. Also
> screen shots can be taken and placed within the document. This is key
> for requirements that effect a GUI.

All very good points, thanks.

Thanks for all of the comments Ben the contribution is very much appreciated.

You said previously that you would like to participate in the project
starting in a couple of months. We would love to have you on board. May
I add you to the committer list on the proposal?

Cheers,
Joel
--
Joel Rosi-Schwartz
Etish Limited [http://www.etish.org]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
^...^
/ o,o \ The proud parents of Useme
|) ::: (| The Open Requirements Management Tool
====w=w==== [https://useme.dev.java.net]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Proposal Comments [message #3610 is a reply to message #3477] Fri, 28 March 2008 16:33 Go to previous message
Donald Dunne is currently offline Donald DunneFriend
Messages: 192
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:

> We considered the CVS approach early on in the project and ended up
> rejecting it because it would be too complex (if not impossible) to keep
> fine grained document referencing in place, and because we do no think

We at OSEE also went through a period of time where we stored the
requirements as files and checked them into CVS. We very quickly
learned the drawbacks of these that Joel mentioned as well as the added
complexity of users needing to checkout a large number of requirements.
Although we never intended the file approach to be a long-term
solution, we were happy that our experiences confirmed that file-based
requirements stored in CVS/SVN was not the way to go.

>> -Your requirements specification is use case centric where my
>> requirements specification is based off of IEEE 1988 Format.
>> Additionally, within my requirements editor I have the capability of
>> measuring estimated time to do development process tasks vs. actuals.
>> For example, I require a user to estimate from a specific requirement
>> how long it is going to take an individual to do design documentation,
>> implementation and testing. I then compare the individuals estimates
>> to the different theoretical models such as Function Point Analysis
>> and DeMarcos Model. Additionally, during the development process I
>> also get actuals from implementation, testing, etc. I then can
>> compare these values to the estimates which gives the project manager
>> an idea of how the project is doing. I would not expect this in
>> ORMF. Just informing you what I did within the Napkins Requirements
>> Editor. You can actually download the Napkins Requirements Editor to
>> see what I am talking about. It is located at
>> http://www.napkins-development-tools.com/NapkinsDynamicWebsi te/napkinsR.do
>>

Building in the workflow around the requirements management is an
absolute necessity. OSEE has done alot of this work as well with it's
configuration management providing the ability to project plan and
capture actuals as you are manipulating the requirements. This would be
a great area to collaborate on with OSEE as well.
Re: Proposal Comments [message #568670 is a reply to message #3477] Fri, 28 March 2008 16:33 Go to previous message
Donald Dunne is currently offline Donald DunneFriend
Messages: 192
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:

> We considered the CVS approach early on in the project and ended up
> rejecting it because it would be too complex (if not impossible) to keep
> fine grained document referencing in place, and because we do no think

We at OSEE also went through a period of time where we stored the
requirements as files and checked them into CVS. We very quickly
learned the drawbacks of these that Joel mentioned as well as the added
complexity of users needing to checkout a large number of requirements.
Although we never intended the file approach to be a long-term
solution, we were happy that our experiences confirmed that file-based
requirements stored in CVS/SVN was not the way to go.

>> -Your requirements specification is use case centric where my
>> requirements specification is based off of IEEE 1988 Format.
>> Additionally, within my requirements editor I have the capability of
>> measuring estimated time to do development process tasks vs. actuals.
>> For example, I require a user to estimate from a specific requirement
>> how long it is going to take an individual to do design documentation,
>> implementation and testing. I then compare the individuals estimates
>> to the different theoretical models such as Function Point Analysis
>> and DeMarcos Model. Additionally, during the development process I
>> also get actuals from implementation, testing, etc. I then can
>> compare these values to the estimates which gives the project manager
>> an idea of how the project is doing. I would not expect this in
>> ORMF. Just informing you what I did within the Napkins Requirements
>> Editor. You can actually download the Napkins Requirements Editor to
>> see what I am talking about. It is located at
>> http://www.napkins-development-tools.com/NapkinsDynamicWebsi te/napkinsR.do
>>

Building in the workflow around the requirements management is an
absolute necessity. OSEE has done alot of this work as well with it's
configuration management providing the ability to project plan and
capture actuals as you are manipulating the requirements. This would be
a great area to collaborate on with OSEE as well.
Previous Topic:Re: Proposal Comments
Next Topic:A good requirements piece that the plugs OSEE/ORMF
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Dec 19 22:45:00 GMT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.09018 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.2.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software