Re: Beta 2 Release - Profiles Question

Hi Tom,
Thanks for the clarification.  I created my own profile a while back but
didn't know how this new profile was meant to be used.  In my case, I used
the profile to generate requirements, design documentation and traceability
information from models.

Regards,

Mark

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Tom Morris <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Mark Fortner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I was playing around with the Profiles in the latest beta release, and
> > wanted to be able to apply a "requirement" stereotype to a use case, but
> it
> > seems as though this is only possible with comments.  How is this
> supposed
> > to work?  Are you supposed to comment use cases, and then assign the
> > stereotype to the comment?
>
> It sounds like you are talking about the <<requirement>> stereotype
> from the UML 1.4 Standard Elements profile.  This is actually defined
> by the OMG in an appendix of the UML spec and we're just including it
> for people to reference.  As defined, it has Comment as its only base
> class, so that's the only thing it can be applied to.  There's nothing
> to stop you however, from defining a <<my-requirement>> stereotype
> that can be applied to different types of elements however.
>
> > Can you then associate the same "requirement"
> > comment to any node (class, state, etc) to capture traceability?
>
> I'm not sure how a State could be a requirement.  Although I don't
> have any insight into the OMG's thought process, having a blurb of
> text (ie Comment) be a requirement seems reasonable to me.  I think
> that people who are doing traceability stuff tend to use dependencies.
>  For example there's a <<trace>> stereotype which can be used with an
> Abstraction dependency to show that two elements are related (say a
> Class that supports a UseCase).
>
> > Also, there doesn't seem to be any tags associated with requirements to
> > allow you to capture the requirement ID.  Is there some other way of
> > capturing the requirement ID?
>
> I'm guessing that the way they envisioned this working was to have
> either the text of the requirement or the requirement ID in the
> Comment and have that tagged with the <<requirement>> stereotype to
> distinguish it from other types of Comments.
>
> The OMG tends to evolve its thinking about stuff like this over time
> and some of the newer thoughts from later versions of UML (e.g. 2.1)
> may be usable with the UML 1.4 structures.  I don't know off the top
> of my head if this is one of those areas though.
>
> Tom
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>


-- 
Mark Fortner

blog: http://feeds.feedburner.com/jroller/ideafactory