Les,
The bug you talk about, considering requirements entering, has been
corrected.
And yes, I believe in HAT, because I have seen so many teams choosing for
"UML" who really needed more guidance than an editor supporting each of the
UML diagram types.
As for the "inflexible process", I would like you to elaborate on this. The
goal of HAT is to provide process ingredients, such as the static and
dynamic model concepts. UML gives you the freedom to draw a class diagram
anytime you like. And so does HAT. But users need a technique to obtain a
consolidated view, summarizing all information on various class diagrams.
The same thing applies for sequence diagrams. Sequence diagrams are a nice
technique, but you concentrate on one particular scenario, and you risk not
being in synch with the other sequence diagrams. So, you should be able to
summarize them into a dynamic model diagram, ...
Requirements ? Right now, I often get the impression that UML books seem to
imply that requirements analysis is just about drawing diagrams. How about
analysis, requirements, dictionary terms, ...
Kind regards,
Johan
=========================================
Johan Galle
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
HOORA, the practical approach to UML: http://www.hoora.org
=========================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 21:49
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: (ROSE) Rose vs Select vs Together vs HAT
>
>
>
>
> Johan,
>
> You really believe in this HAT then :-)
>
> Actually, I downloaded the evaluation version and took it
> with on a week's
> conference. I'm sorry to say, that after 3 days of
> experimenting, I do not
> have your faith in HAT.
>
> 1) The process implemented by the tool is too inflexible. I'm
> not saying
> that HOORA is not a good process, it's just that I have
> certain artifacts
> in my process that HAT did not allow me to implement.
>
> 2) Way TOO many bugs. Anyone would think that Rational had
> had a hand in
> the coding :-) It would not allow me to enter my requirements
> through the
> requirements management window and if I tried to force them
> into the tool
> via the tree view pane HAT would go down.
>
> The idea is good, I will have another look in the future if
> you can assure
> me that the bugs have been ironed out.
>
> Les.
>
>
>
>
>
> Johan Galle
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
> "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'"
> >
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent by: cc:
>
> owner-rose_forum@ra Subject:
> RE: (ROSE) Rose vs Select vs Together vs HAT
> tional.com
>
>
>
>
>
> 04/09/2001 03:38 AM
>
> Please respond to
>
> Johan Galle
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is my major requirement for a UML tool:
>
> A UML TOOL HAS TO SUPPORT THE MODELING PROCESS
>
> Tool developers have misunderstood the UML standardization in their
> conclusion:
>
> ALL THAT A UML TOOL HAS TO DO IS TO SUPPORT THE UML NOTATION
>
> UML tools should not be just a collection of diagram editors.
>
> We defined a "set of process ingredients", which is far more
> concrete than
> "here are the diagrams", and which is also far more concrete than the
> over-generic RUP. We validated this in work we did for the
> European Space
> Agency. These ingredients are still flexible enough to cover
> many needs.
>
> These are some of the ingredients we introduce:
> Requirements, Terms dictionary, automatically generated
> diagrams that have
> a
> pre-defined meaning (static model, dynamic model, package
> summary), tracing
> requirements to all kinds of model elements, distributing the
> requirements
> linked to use cases X to the classes introduced in sequence
> diagrams under
> use case X, hierarchy rules and metrics, ...
>
> The static model of class X is a class diagram showing this
> class X and
> all
> the classes statically related to X. The dynamic model of
> class X shows
> class X and all the classes (dynamically) interacting with it
> (based on
> sequence and collaboration diagram information). The package summary
> diagram
> of package X shows package X and all the packages it depends
> upon. The good
> thing is that all these diagrams are automatically kept consistent.
>
> With these ingredients, it is easier to create your own "process".
>
> Take a look at http://www.hoora.org or browse through this
> step by step
> example: http://www.hoora.org/hoora_example.htm.
>
> I feel that the whole UML standardization has led to far less
> emphasis on
> the process. And the support you get from "UML tools" is
> really minimal.
> CASE tools are supposed to be more than drawing tools. Not
> giving enough
> support in order to still cover a large enough user base is
> wrong (I hope).
>
> For this HOORA process, we developed a tool, HAT (HOORA
> Analysis Tool).
> (And
> yes, we can read .mdl files)
>
> And I would like to add HAT to your list of tools.
>
> Regards,
> =========================================
> Johan Galle
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> HOORA, the practical approach to UML: http://www.hoora.org
> =========================================
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Damian Dixon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 10:17
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: (ROSE) Rose vs Select vs Together
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > While the list is discussing Together, could I suggest a
> > broader discussion.
> >
> > I am currently looking at a replacement for Rose and I am
> > looking at both Together and Select and would like to know
> > peoples experience of Select as well :>
> >
> > One of the main criteria I am looking for is the ability
> > of a tool to read Rose mdl files. We just have too many
> > on going Rose designs.
> >
> > I am also looking for:
> >
> > o Stable design tool (Rose 2001 is too buggy, Rose has cost
> > my project this year ~£7000 in lost time, we have had to
> > go back to 2000e).
> > o Better way for documenting (being able to use more then
> > just text, and to be able to specify additional sections
> > within a textual description).
> > o Better documentation generation (yes we have SODA, but I've
> > gone for modifying the reportgen_plus script).
> > o Workable reverse engineering.
> > o Ability to generate code from state diagrams.
> > o Easier to use GUI (less mouse clicks and more sensible layout).
> > o Better team support.
> >
> > Please don't limit your comments to Rose, Select and Together
> > as I know there are other tools out there as well.
> >
> > I look forward to hearing peoples comments and suggestions...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Damian
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------
> > -----------------------
> > Damian Dixon, BSc(Hons), BSc(Hons), FRGS
> > ODS Design Authority
> > Senior Software Development Engineer
> > TENET Defence Ltd.
> > North Heath Lane
> > Horsham
> > West Sussex
> > RH12 5UX
> >
> > Tel: +44 1403 273173
> > Fax: +44 1403 273123
> > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.tenetdefence.com
> >
> > **************************************************************
> > **************
> > ***
> > Any views expressed in this message are those of the
> > individual sender, except where the sender specifically
> > states them to be the views of TENET Defence Ltd.
> >
> > This email and any attachments may contain confidential information
> > and/or copyright material. It is intended for the use of the
> > addressee
> > only and any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you
> receive this
> > email by mistake, please advise the sender by using the
> reply facility
> > in your email software.
> > **************************************************************
> > **************
> > ***
> >
> > **************************************************************
> > **********
> > * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
> > * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
> > *
> > * Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > * Archive of messages:
> http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
> * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *
> * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
> *
> * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Subject:<BLANK>
> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
> *
> **************************************************************
> ***********
> **************************************************************
> **********
> * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
> * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
> *
> * Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Archive of messages:
> http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
> * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *
> * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
> *
> * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Subject:<BLANK>
> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
> *
> **************************************************************
> ***********
>
>
>
>
>
> **************************************************************
> **********
> * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
> * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
> *
> * Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Archive of messages:
http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
* Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
*
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject:<BLANK>
* Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
*
*************************************************************************
************************************************************************
* Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
* For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
*
* Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Archive of messages:
http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
* Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
*
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject:<BLANK>
* Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
*
*************************************************************************
