[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [epf-dev] RE: epf-dev Digest, Vol 19, Issue 10
|
Per, thanks for the plug about TOGAF and EPF! BTW, you can
see the preliminary version of the TOGAF EPF Proof-of-Concept at www.aprocessgroup.com/togaf.
Asterion, APG also had thoughts for a DO-178B plugin
of some sorts as we have some aerospace clients that would benefit from
it...
Thanks, Chris ~:|
Chris Armstrong ~:|
President
Armstrong Process Group, Inc.
651.491.5575 c
715.246.0383 f
6514915575@xxxxxxxxxxx cell message
www.aprocessgroup.com
"proven practical process"
Come see APG at:
---------------
Enterprise
Architecture Practitioners Conference
Austin,
TX, July 23-25, 2007
www.opengroup.org/austin2007
---------------
Dr. Dobb's
Architecture & Design World 2007
Chicago,
IL, July 24-27, 2007
www.sdexpo.com/2007/archdesign
---------------
Hi A, this woudl eb good things to happen. Can you, or anybody
else listening, helkp making sure that any of that is happening?
I have myself had discussions with some of
the top people at DoD wrt making EPF the tool of choice for capturing DoD
process guidance... I think these type of discussions are vital for EPF, it is a
very powerful tool set that can and should be used by a variety of organization
and standards as the ones you mention... Chris Armstrong has e.g. worked on getting the Open Group to adopt
EPF... But it takes time so we are
looking for people that want to help driving adoption. Cheers Per
Kroll
STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC
Project Lead: Eclipse Process
Framework
Rational Software, IBM Corp
(M) 408-219-2963
"Asterion Daedalus"
<piercingdragoneyes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
07/05/2007 10:15 PM
|
Please respond
to
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
|
To
| epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
| [epf-dev] RE: epf-dev Digest, Vol
19, Issue 10 |
|
I
am thinking that the next issue is setting up a method/process plugin zoo
and inviting participation from camps as far afield as 12207, DO178B yadda
process camps, down to URN and other method camps.
Someone should
coax the SWEBOK to re-tool.
Set up EPF as THE tool for IP exchange in
software engineering and lowly
software
development.
Cheers,
A
>From:
epf-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Reply-To: epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>To:
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: epf-dev Digest, Vol 19, Issue
10
>Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:00:19 -0400 (EDT)
>
>Send
epf-dev mailing list submissions to
>
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>To subscribe or
unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
>or, via email, send a
message with subject or body 'help' to
>
epf-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>You can
reach the person managing the list at
>
epf-dev-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>When replying,
please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents
of epf-dev digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>
1. Re: Multiple Capability Patterns -- some unpublished?
>
(Jaana Nyfjord)
> 2. RE: General:
Questions on Introduction to OpenUP node
>
intreebrowser (Ben
Williams)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message:
1
>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 18:23:24 +0200 (CEST)
>From: "Jaana
Nyfjord" <jaana@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [epf-dev] Multiple
Capability Patterns -- some
>
unpublished?
>To: "Eclipse Process Framework Project
Developers List"
>
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: "Eclipse Process Framework Project
Developers List"
>
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Message-ID:
<42603.24.80.155.80.1183566204.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Content-Type:
text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
>I also agree with adding this extra
capability pattern. It makes certainly
>makes sense, and I believe it will
only improve the position of OpenUP.
>
>My only concern is that we
should be very clear and consistent with the
>message about what is
considered "default", and what are variations in
>order to avoid any
misunderstanding.
>
>Cheers
>Jaana
N
>
>
>
> I agree that would have value. We could
label them as sample variations
>of
> > OpenUP we have seen an
interest in.
> >
> > We have one default view of what type of
development we want to promote,
> > but we realize that many would like
to put their own twise. So, we
>provide
> > some examples of
such variations...
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
Per Kroll
> > STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC
> > Project
Lead: Eclipse Process Framework
> > Rational Software, IBM Corp
>
> (M) 408-219-2963
> >
> >
> >
> >
Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
> > Sent by:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 06/29/2007 11:37 AM
> > Please
respond to
> > Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > To
>
> Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > cc
> >
> >
Subject
> > Re: [epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some
unpublished?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> > I believe that having a few extra
capability patterns that show a couple
> > of different ways of using
OpenUP is fine. What we don't want to have is
> > 100 more patterns to
create 200 different variations :-)
> > We want to keep OpenUP minimal,
and it is fine if you can slightly vary
> > it, without major
customization, as it comes out-of-the-box.
> > We can provide 1 or 2
canned configurations that allow the process to be
> > easily published
with those variations you mentioned below. Ideally, no
> > matter what
configuration you publish, the published process is called
> >
OpenUP.
> >
> > Does it make sense? Are we aiming that for
this release or next?
> >
> > Ricardo Balduino
> >
IBM Rational Software (www.ibm.com/rational)
> > Eclipse Process
Framework (www.eclipse.org/epf)
> >
> >
> >
>
> "Brian Lyons" <blyons@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent by:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > 06/29/2007 06:14 AM
>
>
> > Please respond to
> > Eclipse Process Framework
Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
>
>
> > To
> > "Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers
List"
><epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > cc
> >
>
> Subject
> > [epf-dev] Multiple Capability Patterns -- some
unpublished?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > hiho,
>
>
> > We want OpenUP to be an enactable process, but also it should
be a good
> > example of usage of the Eclipse Process
Framework.
> >
> > We have had some discussion about whether
or not there is development in
> > Inception. The discussion has
led us to not include development as the
> > ?default? (i.e. the only
supplied Inception iteration template) while
> > having some verbiage
around possibly including additional activities for
> >
development.
> >
> > The original 0.9 release didn?t enforce
Test-driven development. In
> > discussions we noted that we
wanted to push TDD because it is a very
> > valuable technique.
The current Develop Solution activity is strictly
> > TDD. But
TDD is something that some organizations are not applying.
> >
>
> What do people think about including some additional capability
patterns
> > in the OpenUP repository that would not be in the default
published
>OpenUP
> > process? This gives us a stronger
message of ?This is the default, but
>it
> > is considered
?valid? to?? for some of these expected variations. And
> > this
might make the repository a stronger example of appropriate usages
>of
> > EPF (the repository has information and some amount of
that is assembled
> > into a published process).
> >
>
>
------------ b
> >
_______________________________________________
> > epf-dev mailing
list
> > epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
> >
_______________________________________________
> > epf-dev mailing
list
> > epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
> > epf-dev mailing
list
> > epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message:
2
>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 21:23:31 +0200
>From: "Ben Williams"
<Ben.Williams@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: RE: [epf-dev] General:
Questions on Introduction to OpenUP
>
node
intreebrowser
>To: "Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers
List"
>
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Message-ID:
>
<0B5F4532EB115E46920BDC5FE7938FFA076B3704@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>My comments embedded
below,
>
>
>
>Ben
>
>
>
>From:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>On
Behalf Of Per Kroll
>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 5:26 AM
>To:
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [epf-dev] General: Questions on Introduction
to OpenUP
node
>intreebrowser
>
>
>
>
>Hi,
>
>I
have a few questions regarding the node "Introduction to OpenUP"
>- Should
we merge "Introduction to OpenUP" and "OpenUP in a Nutshell"?
><I think
yes>
>
>[BW] I vote yes
>
>
>- Will the
overview graph be at "Introduction to OpenUP"? <I think yes,
>but this
is becoming a length page, is that wise for an intro
page?>
>
>[BW] As per Ricardos comments, yes I think it needs to
be, and should be
>displayed at the top of the
page
>
>
>- Do we still need "OpenUP Fundamental Concepts"? I
have already
>referenced the 4 phases, risk, and iteration from Governance
lifecycle
>and Iteration lifecycle respectively. I also referenced
Software
>Architecture from Micro iteration, and I could reference Use
Case, from
>Micro Increment, but I do not think there is a great logical
connection
><I think no, we do not need "OpenUP Fundamental Concepts".
>
>
>[BW] What is the rationale for getting rid of
this?
>
>
>
>Cheers
>
>Per
Kroll
>STSM, Manager Methods: RUP / RMC
>Project Lead: Eclipse
Process Framework
>Rational Software, IBM Corp
>(M)
408-219-2963
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Telelogic
Lifecycle Solutions:
>Helping You Define, Design & Deliver Advanced
Systems & Software
>Learn More at
www.telelogic.com
>
>
>Ben Williams
>Director of Product
Management, Lifecycle Solutions
>Telelogic UK Ltd
>Northbrook House,
Oxford Science Park,
>Oxford
>OX4 4GA, United Kingdom
>Phone:
+44 020 7193 7067
>Fax: +44 (1865) 784 286
>Mobile phone: +44 (7710)
637
067
>
>
>Ben.Williams@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://www.telelogic.com
>
>Telelogic
- Requirements-Driven
Innovation!
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>The
information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment or
>enclosure, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
>addressed and may contain confidential material. Any unauthorized use,
>review, retransmissions, dissemination, copying or other use of this
>information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
>prohibited.
>-------------- next part --------------
>An
HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev/attachments/20070704/4a503f01/attachment.html
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>epf-dev
mailing
list
>epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
>
>
>End
of epf-dev Digest, Vol 19, Issue
10
>***************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Advertisement:
New jobsjobsjobs.com.au. Find thousands of jobs online now!
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL="">
_______________________________________________
epf-dev
mailing
list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
