Hi,
I cannot see the Application Reference Model View.
All I see is this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19D5Ze8 ... sp=sharing
I used the Launchpad to upload to Protege, and loaded it with a bunch of test data in the 5 tabs indicated as documented in https://enterprise-architecture.org/ess ... nchpad.php:
- Application Capabilities (and their parent-child relationships)
- Application Services
- Application Providers
- App Service 2 App Capabilities (the mappings between Application Capabilities and Application Services)
- App Service 2 Apps ) the mappings between Application Services and Application Providers)
Here is a link to the spreadsheet I used https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... ue&sd=true
What I see:
1) the generation of the dup file has no errors
2) the upload to Protege showed no errors
3) Protege shows all the entities and the relationships that I defined in the Launchpad spreadsheet
4) The update to the Viewer from Protege shows no errors.
5) The Viewer shows that all the catalogs are populated with what I have in Protege
However:
The view of the Application Reference Model shows a quasi blank page as shown above.
I can spot a small difference between what is in the demo under https://essentialviewer.com/demo/report ... &cl=en-gb# and what I have in my Viewer. In mine, there is a green label that says "Scope is active" and an Edit button on the top right corner that do not appear in the demo version of the Viewer. If I click on the Edit Scope button, a small section appears on the page, to select a category, but there are no options in the dropdown. See here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l-g0iK ... sp=sharing
I'm obviously doing something wrong, but I can't figure out what it is.
Can you please help me?
Many thanks in advance!
PS:
Update on June 10, 2022
I just noticed that a similar problem occurs with the Technology Reference Model. In my viewer I can see that the catalogs have the information but the TRM view is "empty" -- i.e., it shows like the view of my Application Reference Model. There has to be something that goes in Apache that is missing or misconfigured.
What am I missing here? Please help!
Update as of June 12, 2022 12:20 EST
I upgraded to version 6.15, hoping that this would fix the issues described before, but the results are exactly the same: neither the Application nor the Technology Reference Models show in the viewer. With v6.15, the Application Reference Model page in the viewer is slightly different from what was showing in v6.14 -- in that now has a button to show/hide the application counts -- but as before, there is no "blue diagram" below it showing the boxes with the Application Capabilities and Services that I can see do exist in the catalog.
I remain eagerly waiting for a solution or for some guidance on how to solve this!
Alex
Viewer does not display my Application Reference Model
-
aschoijett
- Posts: 26
- Joined: 01 Jun 2018, 14:16
Hi John,
1) When I put in my browser's address this URL:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dA4Onw ... sp=sharing
2) If using Windows Explorer I go to
C:\Program Files\Apache Software Foundation\Tomcat 9.0\webapps\407ETR\enterprise
and then double click on the file core_el_it_asset_dashboard_checker.xsl
A browser opens up and shows this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17Ia-jx ... sp=sharing
I don't know if I'm doing what you need me to do, though. Please let me know if I'm not and if this helps.
Many thanks again,
Alex
1) When I put in my browser's address this URL:
I got a 403 reply from the server, as shown below
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dA4Onw ... sp=sharing
2) If using Windows Explorer I go to
C:\Program Files\Apache Software Foundation\Tomcat 9.0\webapps\407ETR\enterprise
and then double click on the file core_el_it_asset_dashboard_checker.xsl
A browser opens up and shows this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17Ia-jx ... sp=sharing
I don't know if I'm doing what you need me to do, though. Please let me know if I'm not and if this helps.
Many thanks again,
Alex
Ah sorry Alex, put it after where it says xsl= in the url, you want to point the xsl at that file so it will be
http://localhost:8080/[your project]/report?XML=reportXML.xml&XSL=enterprise/core_el_it_asset_dashboard_checker.xsl
John
http://localhost:8080/[your project]/report?XML=reportXML.xml&XSL=enterprise/core_el_it_asset_dashboard_checker.xsl
John
-
aschoijett
- Posts: 26
- Joined: 01 Jun 2018, 14:16
Hi John.
Here it is. Let me know if there is anything else you need.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EGWMQ9 ... sp=sharing
Hope this helps,
Alex
Here it is. Let me know if there is anything else you need.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EGWMQ9 ... sp=sharing
Hope this helps,
Alex
First thing to try, you have not mapped your Technology Domains to a classification Top, Left, Middle, Right or Bottom, so on each Technology Domain go to the Classified As slot and add one of those. That slot positions the domains in the view.
Make sure the Domains have technology capabilities mapped using the contains technology capabilities slot.
Let me know if that works
PS I'll make a note for the devs to make this dynamic if there is no classification in a future release
Make sure the Domains have technology capabilities mapped using the contains technology capabilities slot.
Let me know if that works
PS I'll make a note for the devs to make this dynamic if there is no classification in a future release
-
aschoijett
- Posts: 26
- Joined: 01 Jun 2018, 14:16
Hi John,
I'm reposting my last reply because for some reason, I cannot find the response I posted earlier today, and I assumed that you can't see either.
My initial problem, posted last week, was that I could not see the Application Reference Map (ARM) from the data imported using the Launchpad following the instructions found in the word document associated to it. I was able to see the data I brought in using the Launchpad, both in Protege and as Catalogs in the Viewer, but the ARM showed basically blank.
While waiting for an answer, I noticed that I could not show the Technology Reference Map (TRM) either. The TRM was supposed to show the data that came preloaded in the Essential model but it was showing nothing. Your last message pointed me to populate the Classified As slot in the Technology Domain class. I did that and the TRM showed. So thank you!
I later made some changes to the data that came from the Launchpad for the Application Capabilities and managed to show the ARM too.
Observations and Feedback
1. In the Launchpad tab called Technology Domain, there is a column called "Position". This actually maps to the "classified as" slot in Technology Capability class. Why using a different naming convention? Shouldn't it be easier for people to know that what appears in one place is the same as what appears in another because they are named the same?
2. In that same tab, the allowed values in the Position column are "Left", "Right", and "Middle", but I think Protege also accepts Top and Bottom.
3. The Launchpad tab called Application Capabilities has a column called App Cap Category and another called Reference Model Layer. The documentation says that the former is deprecated and that one should use the latter. Why would the deprecated column be included in the Launchpad? And for the column that is not deprecated (Reference Model Layer), the one that maps to the "classified as" slot of the Application Capability class, why not using a similar name for it?
4. In my Launchpad, I used the Reference Model Layer column for the Application Capabilities that I was importing, as dictated by the word file that comes with the Launchpad. The result was that although Protege showed the "classified as" slot was populated with the values from the Launchpad, the ARM did not display. I then used Protege and changed the values of the "classified as", to the values accepted by the App Cap Category column *i.e., the one the documentation says it is deprecated* in the Application Capabilities tab in the Launchpad (said values are Core, Enabling, Management, and Shared). Lo and behold, the ARM showed up! So the values allowed in the column that IS mapped to the "classified as" slot are **wrong** and one should use the values of the deprecated column! How could one figured that out?
5. I noticed that the Taxonomy also include terms like Core Application Capability, Enabling Application Capability, Management Application Capabilities, and Shared Application Capabilities, which are close to Core, Enabling, Management, and Shared. That said, if an application capability is classified using any of those terms, then they do not show in the ARM. So why not cleaning up terms (read "the noise") in the taxonomy that is distributed with Essential? I cannot do that because I have no clue where else they could be used. In particular, some seem to be used to alter how a Report shows data in the viewer, and I have no clue how to know which report requires which term.
6. I also noticed that for Applications, there is an Application Capability class that can be decomposed into many Application Capabilities. For Technologies, though, there is a Technology Domain class (there is no equivalent for Applications) and that decomposes into many Technology Capabilities. Why this inconsistency in the metamodel? Why creating a new class (in an already large and complex metamodel) when a simple decomposition of an existing class would have sufficed?
Although I learned a few things, this has been a rather frustrating experience. It took a week to have this solved and I spent hours chasing ghosts.
Your thoughts on these points are really appreciated!
Finally, do these problems also exist in the paid version?
How can I avoid spending so many hours on troubleshooting and use them to get things done instead? What am I missing?
Many thanks,
Alex
I'm reposting my last reply because for some reason, I cannot find the response I posted earlier today, and I assumed that you can't see either.
My initial problem, posted last week, was that I could not see the Application Reference Map (ARM) from the data imported using the Launchpad following the instructions found in the word document associated to it. I was able to see the data I brought in using the Launchpad, both in Protege and as Catalogs in the Viewer, but the ARM showed basically blank.
While waiting for an answer, I noticed that I could not show the Technology Reference Map (TRM) either. The TRM was supposed to show the data that came preloaded in the Essential model but it was showing nothing. Your last message pointed me to populate the Classified As slot in the Technology Domain class. I did that and the TRM showed. So thank you!
I later made some changes to the data that came from the Launchpad for the Application Capabilities and managed to show the ARM too.
Observations and Feedback
1. In the Launchpad tab called Technology Domain, there is a column called "Position". This actually maps to the "classified as" slot in Technology Capability class. Why using a different naming convention? Shouldn't it be easier for people to know that what appears in one place is the same as what appears in another because they are named the same?
2. In that same tab, the allowed values in the Position column are "Left", "Right", and "Middle", but I think Protege also accepts Top and Bottom.
3. The Launchpad tab called Application Capabilities has a column called App Cap Category and another called Reference Model Layer. The documentation says that the former is deprecated and that one should use the latter. Why would the deprecated column be included in the Launchpad? And for the column that is not deprecated (Reference Model Layer), the one that maps to the "classified as" slot of the Application Capability class, why not using a similar name for it?
4. In my Launchpad, I used the Reference Model Layer column for the Application Capabilities that I was importing, as dictated by the word file that comes with the Launchpad. The result was that although Protege showed the "classified as" slot was populated with the values from the Launchpad, the ARM did not display. I then used Protege and changed the values of the "classified as", to the values accepted by the App Cap Category column *i.e., the one the documentation says it is deprecated* in the Application Capabilities tab in the Launchpad (said values are Core, Enabling, Management, and Shared). Lo and behold, the ARM showed up! So the values allowed in the column that IS mapped to the "classified as" slot are **wrong** and one should use the values of the deprecated column! How could one figured that out?
5. I noticed that the Taxonomy also include terms like Core Application Capability, Enabling Application Capability, Management Application Capabilities, and Shared Application Capabilities, which are close to Core, Enabling, Management, and Shared. That said, if an application capability is classified using any of those terms, then they do not show in the ARM. So why not cleaning up terms (read "the noise") in the taxonomy that is distributed with Essential? I cannot do that because I have no clue where else they could be used. In particular, some seem to be used to alter how a Report shows data in the viewer, and I have no clue how to know which report requires which term.
6. I also noticed that for Applications, there is an Application Capability class that can be decomposed into many Application Capabilities. For Technologies, though, there is a Technology Domain class (there is no equivalent for Applications) and that decomposes into many Technology Capabilities. Why this inconsistency in the metamodel? Why creating a new class (in an already large and complex metamodel) when a simple decomposition of an existing class would have sufficed?
Although I learned a few things, this has been a rather frustrating experience. It took a week to have this solved and I spent hours chasing ghosts.
Your thoughts on these points are really appreciated!Finally, do these problems also exist in the paid version?
How can I avoid spending so many hours on troubleshooting and use them to get things done instead? What am I missing?
Many thanks,
Alex
Hi Alex,
The reason why we have different ways of doing things in Launchpad is that we have people whom have used Essential for over 10 years now and we need to ensure that we don't break their views if they have followed a modelling approach that we used to use. As we've evolved Essential, we've extended the meta model which has allowed us to do things in different ways and which we think are more useful. So, it is purely to ensure that legacy users are not left out that we take this approach, and we have tried to make this clear in the Launchpad documentation..
We recognise that the meta model is large and has some complexity in places but the complexity is necessary to answer complex questions (organisations are complex). With the simplistic models you see elsewhere, they are OK at answering simple questions but answering deeper EA questions is not possible. To work effectively with our meta model, we suggest you focus on one area build it out and then move on the the next area. If Essential is a department store, create a list of goods you want, visit a department, buy all the goods on your list in that department and then move on, don't try and ad hoc approach of buy what you see. Our meta model is exactly the same, decide on your objective, e.g. application rationalisation, focus on this parts of the meta model needed to support that, get your data in, light up the views and then move on.
The tutorials are pretty extensive, we know there are a few gaps but are trying to address them, and we do provide training on the meta model which simplifies the understanding. Essential Cloud also makes things easier as the editors manage a lot of the complexity for you and handle a lot of the optionality that the Launchpad asks the user to worry about.
I guess you answered your own question regarding 'How can I avoid spending so many hours on troubleshooting' - make sure you read the documentation first and watch the videos. We are consolidating the documentation into a much more accessible format which will be released soon.
John
The reason why we have different ways of doing things in Launchpad is that we have people whom have used Essential for over 10 years now and we need to ensure that we don't break their views if they have followed a modelling approach that we used to use. As we've evolved Essential, we've extended the meta model which has allowed us to do things in different ways and which we think are more useful. So, it is purely to ensure that legacy users are not left out that we take this approach, and we have tried to make this clear in the Launchpad documentation..
We recognise that the meta model is large and has some complexity in places but the complexity is necessary to answer complex questions (organisations are complex). With the simplistic models you see elsewhere, they are OK at answering simple questions but answering deeper EA questions is not possible. To work effectively with our meta model, we suggest you focus on one area build it out and then move on the the next area. If Essential is a department store, create a list of goods you want, visit a department, buy all the goods on your list in that department and then move on, don't try and ad hoc approach of buy what you see. Our meta model is exactly the same, decide on your objective, e.g. application rationalisation, focus on this parts of the meta model needed to support that, get your data in, light up the views and then move on.
The tutorials are pretty extensive, we know there are a few gaps but are trying to address them, and we do provide training on the meta model which simplifies the understanding. Essential Cloud also makes things easier as the editors manage a lot of the complexity for you and handle a lot of the optionality that the Launchpad asks the user to worry about.
I guess you answered your own question regarding 'How can I avoid spending so many hours on troubleshooting' - make sure you read the documentation first and watch the videos. We are consolidating the documentation into a much more accessible format which will be released soon.
John
