RTC Links, semantics and visualisation in a plan for Blocks/Depends on
Hello,
Recently I have come across a problem related to visualisation of links/relations on a tree in a plan.
When displaying a simple relation of Parent/Child (P/C) between work item A and B (A parent of B) then everything works fine.
However, if I create a relation between A and B such that "A Blocks B" (A -Blk-> B) then it is natural that "blocking" action comes from A and B depends on A.
When such a relation is displayed in a plan as Tree "Blocks -> Depends" then it is shown as:
B-|
|> A
Although the roadmap view of these items clearly shows A -> B (Finish-to-Start dependency).
After a little bit of consideration the semantics of creation of various relations differs.
1) Parent/Child: When creating this relationship for item A we actually point at its Parent or its Child.
2) Blocks/Depends: When creating this relationship from within item A to item B we say "A Blocks B" this is active verb instead of inactive noun (as in P/C relation). If we wanted that relation to be analogous to Parent/Child we'd need to point at "Dependant" - this way creating A Blocks B relation.
The difference in semantics may be the cause of the inverse visualization of the Blocks/Depends vs. Parent/Child.
If in A we use "Parent" and point at B then we get the B being on top when displaying Parent/Child hierarchy
If in A we use "Blocks" and point at B then by analogy (to Parent/child) we get B being on top when displaying Blocks/Depends - but this is wrong because B is a Dependant of A as A Blocks B.
I'd appreciate comments on this subject before requesting IBM to fix that... as I may be missing something.
Regards,
Darek B.
Comments
sam detweiler
Jun 10 '14, 7:57 a.m.the visualization depends on the perspective..
A has children B,C,D,E, so A comes first if you are looking from A (this is easy to combine)
B,C,D,E have a a common parent, A, so B,C,D,E would come first , each showing its parent. (this is not easy to combine)
F depends on G, F would come first, showing the dependency on G
G blocks F, G would come first, showing it blocks F