[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [ormf-dev] Moving forward with the model
|
Hi Barbara,
I have read your comment and decided to reply on the somewhat
not-so-public mailing list rather than on the Wiki.
Firstly, I think I get the point - and this is, where I believe I am in
agreement with you. ORMF shall support the requirements process
generally speaking.
What makes me wonder is how you have stated your arguments. I get the
impression, it is not "requirements" that matter, but simply the
information processing activity. Simply put, if I take you verbatim, we
should rename ORMF to "Open Document Management Framework", since we are
no longer dealing with the particularities of requirements, but of some
general information items that need to be collected, sorted, and,
finally, published.
What made much of the value of ORMF, the fact that we want to support
requirements, seems gone now.
But maybe I misunderstood your comment.
The other point that I have is, if we drop any model of requirements,
that is, the ability to treat them any special, the question arises "why
ORMF at all?"
There are many tools on the market that deal with information publishing
and also many that deal with text requirements. There is no feature or
ability ORMF would offer (if I follow your arguments) beyond any of
those tools. So ORMF is but another "wheel" being invented, only this
time it's for free? Or a more beautiful one?
Much of my motivation to contribute to ORMF was the idea of being able
to better integrate models and text requirements than other tools
currently offer. I understand this is a very ambitious aim. If we now
drop this objective for whichever reason (or if I must now learn that it
only existed in my head) I would very much want to understand what the
real objectives of ORMF are. If it only reimplements functionality
available from other tools, why? Is it to have it for free? Is it,
because you are unhappy with what other tools provide?
If it is the "free" thing, well, I would drop it. There are reasonable
tools on the market for few hundred Euros that can do this pretty well,
so why bother? Any commercial project would be able to afford them. And
non-profit projects can get free licenses from many vendors as well.
If it is certain deficiencies of existing tools, we must have a clear
understanding of what we want to improve or do differently.
In other words, I guess its high time to write down the requirements on
ORMF itself, isn't it?
Kind regards,
Wolfgang
Barbara Rosi-Schwartz schrieb:
Hi guys.
As announced by Joel, I have now posted a comment on the wiki. It is
in the form of a new discussion point titled "Stepping back in order
to move forward", appended at the end of the trail.
Replies please!... :-)
B.
On 2 Feb 2009, at 15:29, Joel Rosi-Schwartz wrote:
Hi,
B. and I over the next month have a nice hunk of time that we can
dedicate to ORMF, about a 100 hours each, so we hope to make some
real solid progress on the model. At the moment B. is composing a
long over due response to the Wiki Requirements page.
We would like to propose that Wolfgang, Veit and B. spearhead the
modelling analysis and design effort. In the meanwhile, I, and anyone
who who like to join me, works towards proving (or disproving) that
the proposed model can actually be utilised to fulfil the
elucidation, management and reporting goals of ORMF. Shall we say
play devil's advocate to challenge the real world feasibility of the
proposed model.
Wolfgang, Veit, are you willing to take on central role with this?
Is anyone else interested in playing devil's advocate?
Many thanks,
Joel
_______________________________________________
ormf-dev mailing list
ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ormf-dev mailing list
ormf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ormf-dev
