Extend the use of dictionary for data entities and elements

These are excellent suggestions - thank you, Tom!

I think Tom's suggestions would help defining data enormously but I'd like to add one more suggestion...

If this area is being enhanced, I would quite like to see field types being selectable (and editable from the Tools menu like other drop downs) rather than straight text entry.  This would avoid having to type the same Format countless times and ensures consistency of terminology.

I would like to have a field to store the physical database location in addition to the Name, Type & Description in the Fields section. This would allow reports to be created to trace Data Dictionary fields that would be impacted by a database change.

Hi Layna,

Did you know that dictionaries support custom fields? Go to Tools / Custom Fields and choose the radio button for Dictionary. You can add a custom field (e.g. TableName, DBName). Once you do that you'll see a prompt for that value on the Details tab of the dictionary element.

Ron

That works for the Entity/Dictionary item, but not for the individual fields/data attributes on the Entity.

You are absolutely right. I can see where you'd want to be able to specify what column(s) correspond to a field (I've worked with some DBAs with very "creative" naming conventions).

Hi

If Serlio goes down this road it would be useful to break up Objects from Data. By this I mean that classes/ domain objects defined during business and systems analysis ( and referenced from Use Cases) be listed separately from detailed data objects.

I use the dictionary for domain objects / classes and their absolute, client-driven description ( this provides clarity later when two **very similar** concepts are being discussed and there is a lack of clarity on terminology). If Case Complete will be used for documenting both domain objects and pure data tables I will need a way to "break them apart" in a report. This is as simple as allowing someone like me to give a dictionary object one or many "types" like

Domain Object

Null

Data table

Class

I agree with Paul. I generally use the dictionary to describe domain terminology and domain objects. The latter being high level such as 'Customer Invoice'. I would like to be able to then define the information elements that make up a 'Customer Invoice' such as 'order number', 'product code' etc., and relate these to the domain object by grouping or preferably drilling down to a more detailed level. In this case, the dictionary would contain the domain object 'Customer Invoice' and perhaps clicking on the domain object in the dictionary would expand the object out to include its nested information elements. Perhaps if nesting was provided to 2 or 3 levels, there would be a sufficient structure to allow the capture of domain object, information elements, data type/format/rules. The nested dictionary could then be included in word reports in expanded or contracted form.

I haven't explored this yet in Case Complete 2011 so forgive me if this can already be done somehow.

Bingo

these are great suggestions – we’re working on some fundamental changes to the way dictionaries are structured that will facilitate implementing these kind of features later. Keep those cards and letters coming…

Ron- If this is still being explored, I would like to see an entire new section devoted to UI definition. I did modify our templates to separate pure glossary definitions from element definition, but it would be nice to have them separate. Also, I would like to reference the DEF in the Use Case as a hyperlink or formal association, similar to requirements.

I agree with Natalie. Is there a way to reference these data elements in use case?

While it's true we don’t support references by ID (yet), we do already have reference capability by name - just by typing in the name of the definition, it creates a hyperlink. These references can be reported on. For an example, see the built-in Domain Analysis Word report.

I tried that but it didn't reference to the name used in a field; only definition which defeats the purpose of using individual fields.

I put in a request for this very thing in 2009 https://casecomplete.zendesk.com/requests/5178. We need to be able to link to the Dictionary and to the data Fields within the Dictionary.

I would love to use the Dictionary for more of my documentation. But my developers won't use it, because there are no links to it and to the data Fields. The data Fields store business rules that I'm not using. Instead I'm writing requirements for linking purposes.

This would be a great addition.