[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [epf-dev] EPF Metamodel extensions
|
Hi Peter,
I think I understand the rationale, but shouldn't we
have the 'back links' checkbox feature for the referenced
elements of a practice as well?
We are recording the scope and status of our CMMI
compliance (and compliancy for other models) using 'practices'. A logical choice
and the CMMI plugin from IBM Rational also uses practices.
So now we know how CMMI Level 3 compliant our processes
are, but another use for this information is in projects, we also expect some
projects to perform the process on that level, and so in that case we think it
is very usefull to be able to see that certain elements play a role in realizing
certain practices.
Best Regards,
Onno
From:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Peter Haumer
Sent: donderdag 27 september 2007 22:07
To:
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
Cc: Eclipse Process
Framework Project Developers List;
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [epf-dev] EPF Metamodel
extensions
Hello JJ. Check out this thread for a discussion on the rationale
for the Practice guidance kind: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/forums/dw_thread.jsp?forum=1078&thread=140649&message=13887190&cat=24&q=practice#13887190
I think the Custom Category approach will
work. In EPF Composer 1.2 you have now a check box called "publish this
category with the categorized elements". When you tick these then your
categories will appear on your work product pages. Check out the "What's New in
EPFC 1.2" presentation recording on the EPF homepage for more details.
Thanks and best regards,
Peter
Haumer.
______________________________________________________________
PETER
HAUMER, Dr. rer. nat.
Rational Method Composer | Eclipse Process
Framework
Rational Software | IBM Software Group
Tel.: +1 (408)
463-5096
______________________________________________________________
"Jean-Jacques Dubray"
<jdubray@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent
by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
09/27/2007 12:56
|
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] EPF Metamodel
extensions |
|
Bruce: thanks, I
do have an additional question regarding the topic, it looks like I can define a
"practice" as a guidance item. Within a practice, I can reference a role, so far
so good, I can define a RACI practice, which contains Responsible,
Accountable... practices. However, I cannot reference a practice from a Work Product Guidance. yet
in the help file it says in the Guidance Relationships section (see table) that
a practice can be referenced by a work product, task and role (which makes sense
to me). In the text below
it says: Practice has a relationship to these elements, not from them. Why is
that? that does not make complete sense to me. Assuming this is logical, how
come, I cannot associate a practice to any other guidance type (for instance:
concept). I should be able to define a RACI concept (per work product) and then
associate Practices elements that attaches roles to it. I also tried to use the custom category
route which allows me to define a CC with my RACI practice. I can then go to
work product and associate it with this CC. However, when I preview the work
product it does not give me a link to the CC. I am out of luck. It looks to me that the relationship
between work products and role is incomplete. thanks, JJ-
On
9/25/07, Bruce Macisaac <bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi JJ,
Currently the EPF metamodel is quite
strict, although we've had discussions about allowing user extensions (like
user-defined guidance types and role assignment types
to support
RACI).
In the
meantime you can put such information in a table, as described in the following
Rational Edge article by Mark Lines http://www.
ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/feb07/lines/index.html?S_TACT=105AGX15&S_CMP=EDU
Another workaround (credit
to Margaret Hedstrom for this idea) - you could create a plug-in that has a
contributing work product for every work product in your library, and add the
RACI information as text to the "key considerations" field.
For
example, if for the Vision work product you want Architect and Stakeholder roles
to be consulted, and Tester and Developer to be informed, then
you could add the following text
to a contributing Vision work product.
Consulted:
- Role: Architect
- Role: Stakeholder
Informed:
- Role: Tester
- Role: Developer
Bruce
MacIsaac
Manager - RUP/OpenUP Content Team
bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx
phone: (408)463-5140
not sure this is the correct place to pose this
question but I am evaluating EPF for our needs and I ran into a snag. I can't
find a place to associate our RACI roles to a work product (responsible,
accountable, consulted and informed). I found a way to associate a role to a
work product via a responsible association.
Is there anyways I
could expand EPF's metamodel to add an accountable, consulted and informed
category in the role's work product tab?
thanks,
JJ-_______________________________________________
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
--
Jean-Jacques Dubray
425-445-4467
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing
list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
