> -----Original Message-----
> From: W.M. Jaworski [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 5:06 AM
> To: Huseyin Angay; 'Rossomando, Philip'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
> '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'English, Art'; 'Lowe, Jeff'; Osvaldo Kotaro
> Takai
> Subject: RE: (RUP) The 4+1 View Model of Architecture
>
>
> Dear HFA:
>
> This could be too crisp but feel free to ask specific questions.
>
Crisp is better than wordy. You'll know when I achieve that, but
don't hold your breath.
> [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).
>
Indeed. In this case, though, the problem is trivial, because the
mapping is well-defined.
The arguments start when the mapping is not so clear. Even worse, we
all have a certain mapping in our minds and we assume that everybody else
has the same or a similar mapping -- and if their views don't appear to
agree with that mapping, they obviously don't get it.
> [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.
>
Sure, the mapping is not perfect, but it would be a good start if
Rose at least attempted to superficially follow RUP's principles. They have,
after all, been part of the same vision for quite some time.
On the other hand, knowing how Rose has evolved over the years (and
I use the word evolve in the Mother Nature sense rather than in the Hand of
God sense, i.e. rather haphazardly), it is not surprising that it will take
some effort to make it follow RUP better. All decade old tools suffer from
this sort of problem. Last time I looked, Tau UML Suite was still expecting
a more-or-less waterfall approach to development, for instance.
> [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?
>
I'll have to look again. Last time I visited your site was last
year, I think.
Did you have to make some tweaks or sacrifices to make RUP fit those
criteria? Or is it RUP as it is?
Context Maps is based on the Use Case Maps, if I recall correctly?
The digital version of the book is somewhere on my machine, but much to my
shame, I have still not looked at it. I don't think it ever made it to
print, has it?
Maths has never been my strongest point, except for a brief two
year period where I made the effort. So, whether something is set calculus
or not is probably not something to ask me. Others may have a better idea.
Regards,
H�seyin
> 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]
This private and confidential e-mail has been sent to you by Egg.
The Egg group of companies includes Egg Banking plc
(registered no. 2999842), Egg Financial Products Ltd (registered
no. 3319027) and Egg Investments Ltd (registered no. 3403963) which
carries out investment business on behalf of Egg and is regulated
by the Financial Services Authority.
Registered in England and Wales. Registered offices: 1 Waterhouse Square,
138-142 Holborn, London EC1N 2NA.
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail and have
received it in error, please notify the sender by replying with
'received in error' as the subject and then delete it from your
mailbox.
************************************************************************
* 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
*************************************************************************
