Dear HFA:
This could be too crisp but feel free to ask specific questions.
[Huseyin Angay]
Representation and visualisation do often get mixed up in the same argument.
[wmj]
We are 'visiting' this problem each time when generating - with a (SQL)
query - a database View. The data base has a pre-defined Schema (aka data
model).
[Osvaldo Kotaro Takai]
If does Rose own a RUP's template, why to don't accommodate perfectly its
own concepts?.
I think that Rational had to review the concepts to nullify suches
discrepancies clearly identified by Art.
[wmj]
Creating the Views of a System (The 4+1 View Model of Architecture etc)
without a pre-defined (or at least modifiable) System Schema is opening a
Pandora box.
[Huseyin Angay]
This is mainly due to a lack of tools that
would allow us to represent/store information concisely, precisely and
unambiguously (I guess that 3P refers to some synonyms of these?) and, at
the same time, visualise that information in more accessible formats.
[wmj]
I am using 3P-ability as an 'acid test' for the notational technologies
(RUP, OPEN etc).
P #1 ::= process-ability - in short CRUD (create, read, update, delete)
capability on the system artifacts.
P #2 ::= plug-ability (aka merge-ability | join-ability) of the system
artifacts.
P #3 ::= pattern-ability - in short identifiable and usable patterns in the
system artifacts.
Now an example of a 3P-able representation.
Please visit http://www.gen-strategies.com/RUPModel/Environment.htm for the
views of RUP Environment Discipline. Those views were generated/retrieved
from a 3P-able model of RUP.
Zoom-out View of the model is at
http://www.gen-strategies.com/RUPModel/RUPMap+.htm. Someone suggested
branding such representation as Set Calculus. I named it Context Maps.
What is your preference?
Regards
Wojtek
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Osvaldo Kotaro Takai
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 9:20 PM
To: 'Lowe, Jeff'; 'English, Art'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'Rossomando, Philip'
Subject: RES: (RUP) The 4+1 View Model of Architecture
Hey Jeff.
I think that you didn't understand Art's thought.
If does Rose own a RUP's template, why to don't accommodate perfectly its
own concepts?.
I think that Rational had to review the concepts to nullify suches
discrepancies clearly identified by Art.
[]�s
Takai.
-----Mensagem original-----
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Em
nome de Lowe, Jeff
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 3 de maio de 2002 12:51
Para: 'English, Art'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
Rossomando, Philip
Assunto: RE: (RUP) The 4+1 View Model of Architecture
Art,
I think you're blurring the boundary between Rose/UML and RUP. It first
helps to make a clear distinction between the UML and RUP. The UML is a
modeling language that facilitates the creation of well formed models, but
it doesn't specify specific models. RUP is a development process that
defines the semantics of a specific set of models (e.g. Use Case, Business
Use-Case, Analysis, Design, Domain, etc.), along with the 4+1 View Model.
That said, Rose is a general UML modeling tool and was around before RUP as
we know it. The views in Rose correspond to the level of specificity of its
contained modeling elements, that is, from concepts (i.e. use cases) to
physical implementation. They are independant of any specific development
process.
In RUP's 4+1 Model, the term Logical View refers to a set of classes that
make up the software's structure. In Rose, the term Logical View refers to
any classes (excluding use cases which are theoretically also classes).
In RUP's 4+1 Model, the Process View refers to a set of classes that
represent processess and threads. In Rose (which is process independant
remember), the Process View is one of many models or views that are made up
of classes, and therefore are part of the its Logical View.
-Jeff
Jeff Lowe
Software Architect
CELT Corporation
199 Forest St.
Marlboro, MA 01752
508-624-4474 x1237
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: English, Art [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 10:52 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Rossomando, Philip
Subject: (RUP) The 4+1 View Model of Architecture
I have been having difficulty understanding the 4+1 View Model, so I decided
to dig into it more today and I feel that I have reached an understanding,
but I also feel that Rational should alleviate the confusion around the 4+1
View Model by making this concept more clear within Rational Rose.
Let's start by creating a new model in Rose using the RUP template. Rose
creates four views: Use Case, Logical, Component, and Deployment
The 4+1 Architecture starts with the "Use Case View" that drives the four
other views. The Use Case View describes hat the system should do. OK. This
is the first view defined in the Rose model that uses the RUP Template.
The next view in the 4+1 View Model is the "Logical View." This view
contains the Analysis Model and the Design Model. This is OK too. The Rose
model still matches up to the 4+1 Architecture.
Now we have the Process View in the 4+1 View Model. This view is missing
from the Rose model based upon the RUP template. Since I cannot create a new
top-level package in Rose (I don't know why this limitation exists. Is there
a way around it?), the RUP Tool Mentor for Documenting the Process View in
Rational Rose suggest that I create a package in the Logical View of the
Rose model and call it the Process View. After creating the process view, I
can create class diagrams where classes are stereotyped <<process>> and
<<thread>> to add some meat to the process view. I can show how <<process>>
and <<thread>> classes are associated with each other in class diagrams-as
well as show how they interact in sequence diagrams.
Why doesn't the RUP template contain a top-level package for Process View?
Why can't I create a top-level package myself in this model for Process
View?
The next view in the 4+1 View Model is the "Implementation View." In the
Rose model based upon the RUP template it is named the "Component View." In
the RUP Tool Mentor, Structuring the Implementation Model Using Rational
Rose it tells us to put the Implementation Model in the Component View. The
Tool Mentor does not mention the Implementation View. Personally I think we
should change the Rose model based upon the RUP template and make "Component
View" the "Implementation View" or vice versa. I would just like the names
to match.
The last view in the 4+1 View Model is the "Deployment View." This View
matches up in both the 4+1 View Model and the Rose model based upon the RUP
template. My only complaint here is why not make this View a package so I
can create more than one deployment diagram. This is really a very serious
limitation. Also, I know XDE supports putting components in nodes, but Rose
does not. This is another limitation that should be fixed.
If I am inaccurate in any way, please correct me. My goal is to achieve a
full understanding of the 4+1 View Model and additionally how it maps to
Rational Rose.
Thanks,
Art.
Arthur English
Research Director, Technology and Architecture
Global Industries
Unisys Corporation
One Unisys Way
Blue Bell, PA 19424
( (215) 986-5712
Mobile: (610) 805-0183
Net: 423-5712
eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
************************************************************************
* Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
* For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
*
* Post or Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Archive of messages:
* http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp
* Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject: <BLANK>
* Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
*************************************************************************
