Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Archived » ORMF » More comments on Stanards
More comments on Stanards [message #6130] Sat, 15 March 2008 11:49 Go to next message
Anders W. Tell is currently offline Anders W. Tell
Messages: 69
Registered: July 2009
Member
Hi,

The project seems as an interesting one and most needed. However Ive
been trying to understand how existing standards come into play.
I work in environments where standards are key and needs to be present.

Could anyone share with me any the plans on how to integrate OMG SysML
and ISO 25000 into the project?


thanks
/anders
Re: More comments on Stanards [message #6159 is a reply to message #6130] Sun, 16 March 2008 00:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joel Rosi-Schwartz is currently offline Joel Rosi-Schwartz
Messages: 624
Registered: July 2009
Location: London. England
Senior Member
On 2008-03-15 04:49:28 -0700, "Anders W.Tell" <opensource@toolsmiths.se> said:

> Hi,
>
> The project seems as an interesting one and most needed. However Ive
> been trying to understand how existing standards come into play.
> I work in environments where standards are key and needs to be present.
>
> Could anyone share with me any the plans on how to integrate OMG SysML
> and ISO 25000 into the project?
>
>
> thanks
> /anders


Hi Anders,

This is all open at the moment. Have you looked at the newsgroup thread
"The importance of standards"? It discusses current state of affairs.

If you would like to contribute to the project in this area we would
welcome your efforts.

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: More comments on Stanards [message #6172 is a reply to message #6159] Sun, 16 March 2008 11:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anders W. Tell is currently offline Anders W. Tell
Messages: 69
Registered: July 2009
Member
Hi, Joel,

Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
> This is all open at the moment. Have you looked at the newsgroup thread
> "The importance of standards"? It discusses current state of affairs.

Yes, I have and thats why I wanted to know more.

Unfortunately I disagree with that this area has not been tackled and no
standards exists.

I believe there are already standards out there that are being used.

For Glossaries therere is OMG SBVR , which is also an Eclipse project i
the makings.

For use cases we have OMG UML2, BPMN, OMG BPDM

For requirements there are OMG SysML, OMG QoS, ans ISO 25000 (software
qualities), + other ISO standards

For motivation (why, ends and measn) we have OMG BMM

For the requirements process there is SPEM2, (see Eclipse project EPF)

My recommendation is to build on established standards and innovate from
there. Otherwise the ORMF risks being viewed as a yet another
specialised requirements software built by a few and used by a few.
Which of course I would not like to happen.


thanks
/anders
Re: More comments on Stanards [message #6187 is a reply to message #6172] Sun, 16 March 2008 19:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Joel Rosi-Schwartz is currently offline Joel Rosi-Schwartz
Messages: 624
Registered: July 2009
Location: London. England
Senior Member
On 2008-03-16 04:08:54 -0700, "Anders W.Tell" <opensource@toolsmiths.se> said:

> Hi, Joel,
>
> Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
>> This is all open at the moment. Have you looked at the newsgroup thread
>> "The importance of standards"? It discusses current state of affairs.
>
> Yes, I have and thats why I wanted to know more.
>
> Unfortunately I disagree with that this area has not been tackled and
> no standards exists.
>
> I believe there are already standards out there that are being used.
>
> For Glossaries therere is OMG SBVR , which is also an Eclipse project i
> the makings.
>
> For use cases we have OMG UML2, BPMN, OMG BPDM
>
> For requirements there are OMG SysML, OMG QoS, ans ISO 25000 (software
> qualities), + other ISO standards
>
> For motivation (why, ends and measn) we have OMG BMM
>
> For the requirements process there is SPEM2, (see Eclipse project EPF)
>
> My recommendation is to build on established standards and innovate
> from there. Otherwise the ORMF risks being viewed as a yet another
> specialised requirements software built by a few and used by a few.
> Which of course I would not like to happen.
>
>
> thanks
> /anders

Hi Anders,

I find nothing unfortunate in your disagreement, thanks for your input :-)

I very much agree that ORMf needs to buy into applicable existing
standards. When we moved from offering Useme as an OS use case tool to
ORMF, we bought into a dramatic enlargement of the vision and scope of
the project. Barbara and make no pretence of our ability to deliver
this grander scope on own. It is going to take folks like you and
Toolsmith adding your expertise to make this come to reality. Want to
play?

I am curious as to why you state that SBVR is Glossary. I thought it
limited itself to business rules which are certainly another piece of
the puzzle that we need to take into consideration. Am I missing a
piece of what SBVR embraces.

Your comments lead me to suspect that you are thinking MDA. If so, I
should say that we have not considered OMRF to be an MDA compliant
framework, but that can certainly be discussed. Thanks for bringing it
into the space.

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: More comments on Standards [message #6204 is a reply to message #6187] Mon, 17 March 2008 15:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Anders W. Tell is currently offline Anders W. Tell
Messages: 69
Registered: July 2009
Member
Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
> On 2008-03-16 04:08:54 -0700, "Anders W.Tell" <opensource@toolsmiths.se>
> said:
>
>> Hi, Joel,
>>
>> Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
>>> This is all open at the moment. Have you looked at the newsgroup
>>> thread "The importance of standards"? It discusses current state of
>>> affairs.
>>
>> Yes, I have and thats why I wanted to know more.
>>
>> Unfortunately I disagree with that this area has not been tackled and
>> no standards exists.
>>
>> I believe there are already standards out there that are being used.
>>
>> For Glossaries therere is OMG SBVR , which is also an Eclipse project
>> i the makings.
>>
>> For use cases we have OMG UML2, BPMN, OMG BPDM
>>
>> For requirements there are OMG SysML, OMG QoS, ans ISO 25000 (software
>> qualities), + other ISO standards
>>
>> For motivation (why, ends and measn) we have OMG BMM
>>
>> For the requirements process there is SPEM2, (see Eclipse project EPF)
>>
>> My recommendation is to build on established standards and innovate
>> from there. Otherwise the ORMF risks being viewed as a yet another
>> specialised requirements software built by a few and used by a few.
>> Which of course I would not like to happen.
>>
>>
>> thanks
>> /anders
>
> Hi Anders,
>
> I find nothing unfortunate in your disagreement, thanks for your input :-)
>
> I very much agree that ORMf needs to buy into applicable existing
> standards. When we moved from offering Useme as an OS use case tool to
> ORMF, we bought into a dramatic enlargement of the vision and scope of
> the project. Barbara and make no pretence of our ability to deliver this
> grander scope on own. It is going to take folks like you and Toolsmith
> adding your expertise to make this come to reality. Want to play?


Sure,

>
> I am curious as to why you state that SBVR is Glossary. I thought it
> limited itself to business rules which are certainly another piece of
> the puzzle that we need to take into consideration. Am I missing a piece
> of what SBVR embraces.

yes, the standard is a Business Vocabulary and Business Rules
specification covering bodies of shared meaning, terminological
dictionaries, vocabularies, business rules and logical formalizations.



/anders
thanks
Re: More comments on Standards [message #6219 is a reply to message #6204] Tue, 18 March 2008 04:49 Go to previous message
Joel Rosi-Schwartz is currently offline Joel Rosi-Schwartz
Messages: 624
Registered: July 2009
Location: London. England
Senior Member
On 2008-03-17 08:42:25 -0700, "Anders W.Tell" <opensource@toolsmiths.se> said:

> Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
>> On 2008-03-16 04:08:54 -0700, "Anders W.Tell" <opensource@toolsmiths.se> said:
>>
>> Hi Anders,
>>
>> I find nothing unfortunate in your disagreement, thanks for your input :-)
>>
>> I very much agree that ORMf needs to buy into applicable existing
>> standards. When we moved from offering Useme as an OS use case tool to
>> ORMF, we bought into a dramatic enlargement of the vision and scope of
>> the project. Barbara and make no pretence of our ability to deliver
>> this grander scope on own. It is going to take folks like you and
>> Toolsmith adding your expertise to make this come to reality. Want to
>> play?
>
>
> Sure,

Great :-)

>>
>> I am curious as to why you state that SBVR is Glossary. I thought it
>> limited itself to business rules which are certainly another piece of
>> the puzzle that we need to take into consideration. Am I missing a
>> piece of what SBVR embraces.
>
> yes, the standard is a Business Vocabulary and Business Rules
> specification covering bodies of shared meaning, terminological
> dictionaries, vocabularies, business rules and logical formalizations.
>
>
>
> /anders
> thanks


Barbara and I are at EclipseCon this week, so best we pick up the tread
next week.

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: More comments on Stanards [message #562107 is a reply to message #6130] Sun, 16 March 2008 00:38 Go to previous message
Joel Rosi-Schwartz is currently offline Joel Rosi-Schwartz
Messages: 624
Registered: July 2009
Location: London. England
Senior Member
On 2008-03-15 04:49:28 -0700, "Anders W.Tell" <opensource@toolsmiths.se> said:

> Hi,
>
> The project seems as an interesting one and most needed. However Ive
> been trying to understand how existing standards come into play.
> I work in environments where standards are key and needs to be present.
>
> Could anyone share with me any the plans on how to integrate OMG SysML
> and ISO 25000 into the project?
>
>
> thanks
> /anders


Hi Anders,

This is all open at the moment. Have you looked at the newsgroup thread
"The importance of standards"? It discusses current state of affairs.

If you would like to contribute to the project in this area we would
welcome your efforts.

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: More comments on Stanards [message #562128 is a reply to message #6159] Sun, 16 March 2008 11:08 Go to previous message
Anders W. Tell is currently offline Anders W. Tell
Messages: 69
Registered: July 2009
Member
Hi, Joel,

Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
> This is all open at the moment. Have you looked at the newsgroup thread
> "The importance of standards"? It discusses current state of affairs.

Yes, I have and thats why I wanted to know more.

Unfortunately I disagree with that this area has not been tackled and no
standards exists.

I believe there are already standards out there that are being used.

For Glossaries therere is OMG SBVR , which is also an Eclipse project i
the makings.

For use cases we have OMG UML2, BPMN, OMG BPDM

For requirements there are OMG SysML, OMG QoS, ans ISO 25000 (software
qualities), + other ISO standards

For motivation (why, ends and measn) we have OMG BMM

For the requirements process there is SPEM2, (see Eclipse project EPF)

My recommendation is to build on established standards and innovate from
there. Otherwise the ORMF risks being viewed as a yet another
specialised requirements software built by a few and used by a few.
Which of course I would not like to happen.


thanks
/anders
Re: More comments on Stanards [message #562149 is a reply to message #6172] Sun, 16 March 2008 19:13 Go to previous message
Joel Rosi-Schwartz is currently offline Joel Rosi-Schwartz
Messages: 624
Registered: July 2009
Location: London. England
Senior Member
On 2008-03-16 04:08:54 -0700, "Anders W.Tell" <opensource@toolsmiths.se> said:

> Hi, Joel,
>
> Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
>> This is all open at the moment. Have you looked at the newsgroup thread
>> "The importance of standards"? It discusses current state of affairs.
>
> Yes, I have and thats why I wanted to know more.
>
> Unfortunately I disagree with that this area has not been tackled and
> no standards exists.
>
> I believe there are already standards out there that are being used.
>
> For Glossaries therere is OMG SBVR , which is also an Eclipse project i
> the makings.
>
> For use cases we have OMG UML2, BPMN, OMG BPDM
>
> For requirements there are OMG SysML, OMG QoS, ans ISO 25000 (software
> qualities), + other ISO standards
>
> For motivation (why, ends and measn) we have OMG BMM
>
> For the requirements process there is SPEM2, (see Eclipse project EPF)
>
> My recommendation is to build on established standards and innovate
> from there. Otherwise the ORMF risks being viewed as a yet another
> specialised requirements software built by a few and used by a few.
> Which of course I would not like to happen.
>
>
> thanks
> /anders

Hi Anders,

I find nothing unfortunate in your disagreement, thanks for your input :-)

I very much agree that ORMf needs to buy into applicable existing
standards. When we moved from offering Useme as an OS use case tool to
ORMF, we bought into a dramatic enlargement of the vision and scope of
the project. Barbara and make no pretence of our ability to deliver
this grander scope on own. It is going to take folks like you and
Toolsmith adding your expertise to make this come to reality. Want to
play?

I am curious as to why you state that SBVR is Glossary. I thought it
limited itself to business rules which are certainly another piece of
the puzzle that we need to take into consideration. Am I missing a
piece of what SBVR embraces.

Your comments lead me to suspect that you are thinking MDA. If so, I
should say that we have not considered OMRF to be an MDA compliant
framework, but that can certainly be discussed. Thanks for bringing it
into the space.

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: More comments on Standards [message #562174 is a reply to message #6187] Mon, 17 March 2008 15:42 Go to previous message
Anders W. Tell is currently offline Anders W. Tell
Messages: 69
Registered: July 2009
Member
Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
> On 2008-03-16 04:08:54 -0700, "Anders W.Tell" <opensource@toolsmiths.se>
> said:
>
>> Hi, Joel,
>>
>> Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
>>> This is all open at the moment. Have you looked at the newsgroup
>>> thread "The importance of standards"? It discusses current state of
>>> affairs.
>>
>> Yes, I have and thats why I wanted to know more.
>>
>> Unfortunately I disagree with that this area has not been tackled and
>> no standards exists.
>>
>> I believe there are already standards out there that are being used.
>>
>> For Glossaries therere is OMG SBVR , which is also an Eclipse project
>> i the makings.
>>
>> For use cases we have OMG UML2, BPMN, OMG BPDM
>>
>> For requirements there are OMG SysML, OMG QoS, ans ISO 25000 (software
>> qualities), + other ISO standards
>>
>> For motivation (why, ends and measn) we have OMG BMM
>>
>> For the requirements process there is SPEM2, (see Eclipse project EPF)
>>
>> My recommendation is to build on established standards and innovate
>> from there. Otherwise the ORMF risks being viewed as a yet another
>> specialised requirements software built by a few and used by a few.
>> Which of course I would not like to happen.
>>
>>
>> thanks
>> /anders
>
> Hi Anders,
>
> I find nothing unfortunate in your disagreement, thanks for your input :-)
>
> I very much agree that ORMf needs to buy into applicable existing
> standards. When we moved from offering Useme as an OS use case tool to
> ORMF, we bought into a dramatic enlargement of the vision and scope of
> the project. Barbara and make no pretence of our ability to deliver this
> grander scope on own. It is going to take folks like you and Toolsmith
> adding your expertise to make this come to reality. Want to play?


Sure,

>
> I am curious as to why you state that SBVR is Glossary. I thought it
> limited itself to business rules which are certainly another piece of
> the puzzle that we need to take into consideration. Am I missing a piece
> of what SBVR embraces.

yes, the standard is a Business Vocabulary and Business Rules
specification covering bodies of shared meaning, terminological
dictionaries, vocabularies, business rules and logical formalizations.



/anders
thanks
Re: More comments on Standards [message #562198 is a reply to message #6204] Tue, 18 March 2008 04:49 Go to previous message
Joel Rosi-Schwartz is currently offline Joel Rosi-Schwartz
Messages: 624
Registered: July 2009
Location: London. England
Senior Member
On 2008-03-17 08:42:25 -0700, "Anders W.Tell" <opensource@toolsmiths.se> said:

> Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
>> On 2008-03-16 04:08:54 -0700, "Anders W.Tell" <opensource@toolsmiths.se> said:
>>
>> Hi Anders,
>>
>> I find nothing unfortunate in your disagreement, thanks for your input :-)
>>
>> I very much agree that ORMf needs to buy into applicable existing
>> standards. When we moved from offering Useme as an OS use case tool to
>> ORMF, we bought into a dramatic enlargement of the vision and scope of
>> the project. Barbara and make no pretence of our ability to deliver
>> this grander scope on own. It is going to take folks like you and
>> Toolsmith adding your expertise to make this come to reality. Want to
>> play?
>
>
> Sure,

Great :-)

>>
>> I am curious as to why you state that SBVR is Glossary. I thought it
>> limited itself to business rules which are certainly another piece of
>> the puzzle that we need to take into consideration. Am I missing a
>> piece of what SBVR embraces.
>
> yes, the standard is a Business Vocabulary and Business Rules
> specification covering bodies of shared meaning, terminological
> dictionaries, vocabularies, business rules and logical formalizations.
>
>
>
> /anders
> thanks


Barbara and I are at EclipseCon this week, so best we pick up the tread
next week.

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]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Previous Topic:More comments on Stanards
Next Topic:Proposal Comments
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Sep 15 09:34:56 GMT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03738 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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