![]() |
Telelogic System Architect (steve huntington) | ![]() |
Topic Title: How to model SV2 Topic Summary: SA interpretation of SV2 Created On: 27-Mar-2008 09:57 Status: Read Only |
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch |
![]() |
![]()
|
![]() |
|
Hi,
I am wondering if anybody have any experience in creating MODAF SV-2a/b/c using System Architect. I am particular interessted in SV-2b and how the ports and protocol stack should be represented. The only place there seem to be any notion of protocols are in the SV-4 system data exchange. Here it is only a text field and cannot have any reference to the TVs. I might be mistaken bu there does not seem to be a reasonable way to represent the SV-2a/b/c in SA? Generally the documentation on MODAF in SA is generally sparse (close to non-existent). Is there anybody who uses SA for MODAF and does anybody know of any resources, where you can find examples and documentation of using SA for MODAF |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Good question Jesper!
- Morten |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
This is why I came on this forum, looking for precisly the answer to this question. Ther is no resonable way of doing this in SA to my knowledge The diagrams are also aweful, its like a 3 year old has been drawing pictures with Microsfot Paint.
Edited: 25-Jun-2008 at 15:49 by Imran Khan |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
The information from the SV-2 is present throug the system data exhanges (SV-4 data flow). The system data exchanges can be attached to the system interfaces in the SV-1 (or SV-2b). I solved the issue by creating an SV-4 and defining the system dataexchanges needed. These are attached to the SV-1 system interfaces. I made a visual representation (on the SV-4) of the SV-2b that resembles the SV-2 from the MODAF documentation suite.
This solution is far from ideal and for the life of me I can't figure out why SA have SV-2 diagram types (other than to claim MODAF compliance), as they are identical to SV-1 diagrams. With respect to the look of the diagrams, I can only agree. I wish it was possible to use the UML fucntionality of SA to create MODAF models. On a side note: The lack of responses to MODAF specific questions on this board, and the maturity (or lack thereof) of the MODAF implementation and documentation leads me to conclude that we are only a few who are using SA for MODAF. This makes MODAF and SA a painful trial and error driven process. Edited: 26-Jun-2008 at 15:01 by Jesper Ryge Leth |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Hi everyone, Our MODAF implementation relies on the existing SV-2 diagram of DoDAF. SV-2a/b/c as you mention, use the UML 2 style representation of ports and System Architect didn't have UML 2 diagrams available when the MODAF support was initially specified. We are in the process of specifying improvements to our MODAF support, including possible support UML-2-style ports. We are also in the process of updating the AcV-2 project timeline diagram for better ease of use and also to align it with metamodel changes of MODAF 1.2. These improvements are scheduled to be available in the next few upcoming releases. If you have any other recommended changes to the MODAF area of the tool, please feed them back. You can reach me at lou.varveris@us.ibm.com, or you can specify them here. Lou |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
SV2 in SA as we all seem to agree is a painful process. After spending £10000 on SA licences I have now gone back to using Telelogic's free tool UML tool. As we all know, its not just about functionality, its about form aswell. Telelogic free tool is a million miles ahead in terms of aesthetics. Will Telelogic eventually produce that sort of quality interface? I hope now that IBM is on the scene, that SA will improve dramatically because I for one would never purchase it again in its current form.
|
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Thanks Imran, your feedback is very much appreciated and appologies for your current dissatisfaction. We are actively working on projects to improve SA's aesthetic usability, including its definition dialog interface, symbol metafile type supported, and various other facets of the user interface. You should see improvements coming in stages over the next few releases.
Edited: 8-Jul-2008 at 23:00 by lou varveris |
|
![]() |
FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2009 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.