Hi David,
I totally agree - other interpretations are valid, and yes bridges are to be avoided when possible. The main decision is whether or nor to adopt a business rules approach (in addition to object / component, product line, or whatever modeling you are doing). As well as tracing to specification models, you'll want to trace to the implementations that contain/enforce the rules. This way, when a rule changes you'll know which 'containers' (implementations) need to be modified. Over time you'll want to monitor and replace implementations that are difficult to modify, with ones better aligned with the business rules approach. Business rules guru Barbara Von Halle describes this as the organization's 'business rule capability', which may or may not include a so-called rules engine. <<Could you, please, share some thoughts on how to supplement UML model with business rules approach within Rational (or any other) toolset.>> I believe Daniels-Cheesman's approach to component specification modeling should first be adopted. Any UML modeling tool can be used, and the approach works well for enterprise application integration (since these are pure specification models and can include interfaces to COTS products). Include interfaces to a separate business rules capability, and when feasible use these interfaces for any rules-intensive processing. Here's a link to the book: UML Components: A Simple Process for Specifying Component-Based Software http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201708515/qid=1019077059/sr=2-3/ref= sr_2_3/103-5223188-4771001 The 'Business Concept Model' Daniels-Cheesman describe is very close to the Fact Model prescribed by the business rules approach. One uses terms that are used in component specifications, the other uses terms that are used in business rule statements. The fact model in particular and the business rules approach in general is described in a very readable way in this soon-to-be classic book: Business Rules Applied: Building Better Systems Using the Business Rules Approach Barbara von Halle http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471412937/qid=1017012123/sr=1-6/ref= sr_1_6/103-5229714-9544656 Object modeling as described in the RUP is fine for the smaller-grained component implementation models. These are the ones that describe how to implement the interfaces specified in the component models. Regards, -Richard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lyalin, David S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Richard Howlett'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:48 PM Subject: RE: (ROSE) Business Modeling with Rational Rose > Richard, > > You are very specific with traceability model: > UseCase-> UseCaseStep->Decision->BusinessRule->Facts. > I think that different interpretations are possible and valid, > including one from my previous message: > Use Case <--> Business Rule <--> Business Object Model > (with an addition of direct connection between Use Case and Business Object > Model). > > Could you, please, share some thoughts on how to supplement > UML model with business rules approach within Rational (or any other) tool > set. > I do believe that the less amount of different tools used - the better and > am very skeptical > regarding "bridges" that integrate tools from different vendors together. > > Thank you > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Howlett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:17 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: (ROSE) Business Modeling with Rational Rose > > > > Hi David, > > The traceability is more like this: > UseCase-> UseCaseStep->Decision->BusinessRule->Facts > > During the course of running through a use case scenario, business decisions > need to be made. Business leaders/decision makers have to decide on how the > business will conduct itself when they arrive at a particular step in a use > case. They need to answer the question: 'What is permissible and what should > be constrained here?' Since it takes too long to describe what is > permitted, only the constraints are recorded. These are business rules and > ensure that the business remains in a planned and consistent state. However > care must be taken in making these rules formal enough to be automated. For > example, without a consistent use of terms, they are of limited value. An > up-to-date fact model adds rigor by ensuring all rules are expressed using > common and consistent terminology. It can be represented as a class diagram > linked appropriately to ReqPro to manage the text. > > <<..would it be reasonable to use the same tool to manage UML model and > business rules (like ReqPro-Rose)>> > Well ReqPro and Rose are needed in any case for business modeling - > regardless if the business rules approach is adopted. If the approach is > adopted, many of its advantages can be had with a properly configured RUP > Development Case. As well, you can integrate your Rational Suite / UML > models with a business rules repository using a product such as Versata's > Rational Rose Design Adapter. > http://www.versata.com/products/inSuite/rationalrose.designadapter.html > > Regards, > -Richard > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lyalin, David S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Richard Howlett'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:59 PM > Subject: RE: (ROSE) Business Modeling with Rational Rose > > > > Richard, > > > > I think that your scheme (UC-BR-BOM) is reasonable. > > Business rules has to be cross-referenced with use-cases and also have to > be > > related to object model. > > It would be reasonable to use the same tool to manage UML model and > business > > rules (like ReqPro-Rose). > > Would you agree? > > > > David > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Richard Howlett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:33 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: (ROSE) Business Modeling with Rational Rose > > > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > <<But I would doubt that BRs have to be managed separately, outside of the > > UML model>> > > What makes you doubt the need to manage business rules separately from UML > > models? I am not suggesting you throw the baby out with the bathwater > after > > all - you are just adding a refinement to your existing modeling effort. > > Here's a way you can manage your rules separately from, while connected to > > your use case model: > > > > Use Case (contains steps) > > ...Use Case Step (requires decisions) > > ......Decision (enforced by rules) > > .........Rule (based on facts) > > ............Fact/object (contained in business object / fact model) > > > > Perhaps your doubt stems from the fact that most business analysis efforts > > do not currently include the business rules approach. This lack of > adoption > > is not because organizations have understood, evaluated and rejected the > > approach - they just don't know about it yet. While the field of business > > rules analysis may sound well-established, there are actually very few > > experienced practitioners. It represents a great opportunity for many of > us! > > > > -Richard > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Lyalin, David S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'Richard Howlett'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:27 AM > > Subject: RE: (ROSE) Business Modeling with Rational Rose > > > > > > > Richard, > > > > > > You are turning this discussion to a different topic - "Is UML > sufficient > > > for business modeling?" - which is fundamental in its nature. I skipped > > > it and moved directly to tools since my answer is - yes, UML is > sufficient > > > to model operations of the business. Talking about diagrams, I don't > know > > > of any non-UML business diagram which semantics can not be expressed in > > UML. > > > Talking about texts, I think that UML's use cases are major textual > > > documents of > > > a business model. > > > > > > Business rules are important - that is why I initiated a > > > discussion of how BRs techniques can benefit and complement an UML-based > > > model. > > > But I would doubt that BRs have to be managed separately, outside of the > > UML > > > model. You are rightfully pointed to ReqPro as a way to correlate > > documents. > > > One of the possible approaches would be to create separate type of a > > > document > > > (BR-type) and cross-reference it with use cases (many-to-many > > relationship). > > > When these BRs could be referenced in use cases and in diagrams. > > > > > > Since use cases are key artifacts of business model, we have to talk > about > > > Rose - ReqPro combination for business modeling. > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > David Lyalin > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Richard Howlett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 10:43 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: (ROSE) Business Modeling with Rational Rose > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > > > <<1. What is the best CASE tool for Business Modeling?>> > > > What aspects of the business are being modeling and why? Who will > assume > > > ownership over the business model - business or IT? > > > > > > <<2. What would be possible problems/risks with the choice of Rose by > > > Rational as a tool for Business Modeling?>> > > > I'm sure most agree that Rose by itself is not sufficient. For example, > a > > > glossary of terms specific to the business is one of the most important > > > artifacts of any business analysis effort. ReqPro rather than Rose fits > > the > > > bill when it comes to handling text-related aspects of the business > > > analysis. Its ability to trace one thing to another is especially > > important. > > > So from a Rational-only perspective Analyst Studio provides a more > rounded > > > solution than Rose does on its own for business modeling. > > > > > > However before discussion of business modeling tools can really proceed, > > the > > > approach taken to modeling business must be carefully considered. > > > Object-orientation is great, but business rules need to be modeled and > > > managed separately. This paves the way for many of the rules to be > > executed > > > by a rules engine (program code generated from the rule specifications). > > > Here's an example of what I mean: > > > > > > http://www.corticon.com/html/so_platform.html > > > > > > In a nutshell, business analysts can use tools to help them enter > > > well-formed rules into a repository. The automation here has to do with > > the > > > formation of rule statements, ensuring consistency between rules, > tracing > > > and so on. This is the automation of rule specification activities in > > other > > > words. Business naturally owns this model, since it is expressed in > terms > > > they already understand. IT owns the models that handle the > implementation > > > of the rules, be they object-models, relational database designs etc. > > > > > > Regards, > > > -Richard > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Lyalin, David S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Cc: "'Baynes, Steve'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Bennett Simon'" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Richard Howlett'" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > > "'Les Munday'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Eric D. Tarkington'" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'eleadsolutions'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > > "'Romuald Restout'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > > "'Charles Edwards'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 9:28 AM > > > Subject: RE: (ROSE) UML and Business Rules > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am re-submitting another posting that did not show up on the forum. > > > Thank > > > > you. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Lyalin, David S. > > > > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:10 AM > > > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > > > Cc: Lyalin, David S. > > > > Subject: Business Modeling with Rational Rose > > > > > > > > > > > > These are some points from the recent discussion with my clients > > regarding > > > > CASE tools for Business Modeling. > > > > > > > > 1. What is the best CASE tool for Business Modeling? > > > > The brief version of my answer - today it is Rose by Rational Corp. > > > because: > > > > a) Tool is established well in a modeling community and it has largest > > > > market share. Good chance that the company will be around for a > > > "reasonable" > > > > time length. > > > > b) Same tool can be used for software development and for business > > > modeling > > > > c) Rose is UML-oriented and, again, the same standard could be use > > > > throughout the software development and business modeling > > > > > > > > 2. What would be possible problems/risks with the choice of Rose by > > > Rational > > > > as a tool for Business Modeling? > > > > My impression is: > > > > a) Rational has no defined strategy on the subject: it does not look > > like > > > > Rational Corp. positioning its Rose modeling tool for Business > Modeling. > > > All > > > > public statements from Rational regarding Business Modeling are very > > > vague. > > > > > > > > b) Major efforts with Rose development are directed towards enhancing > > > > design-related and code generation tasks at the expense of > > > analysis-related > > > > tasks. On practice it means that product lacks features that are > > important > > > > for Business Modeling (as example, obvious deficiencies with the > visual > > > > aspects of diagrams). > > > > > > > > Still, it would be logical to use Rose for the Business Modeling > today - > > > for > > > > reasons stated in section 1. The concern is that without defined > > strategy > > > > and focused efforts from Rational, role of the Rose as a Business > > Modeling > > > > tool could diminish dramatically. > > > > > > > > Your comments and opinions would be appreciated. > > > > > > > > David Lyalin > > > > > ************************************************************************ > > > > * 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 > > > > > > ************************************************************************* > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************************************************ > > > * 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 > > > > ************************************************************************* > > > > > ************************************************************************ > > * 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 > > ************************************************************************* > > > ************************************************************************ > * 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 > ************************************************************************* > ************************************************************************ * 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 *************************************************************************
