Peter,
You write "However, in a new development companies who seem to be
negatively impacted by a successful EPF project (emphasis mine) come
forward and want to start their own specification work."
In my reading of their emails, I have heard them give other arguments
for their lack of support for all of the current SPEM submission. You
have made a rather strong negative accusation as to their motives,
while at the same time, some (but not me
:-) ) might be tempted to wonder if your unwavering
support for the current version of SPEM and epf might be because it is
so closely tied to your tool. Do you have any evidence that their wish
to modify SPEM is related to their wanting to minimize its impact on
their tool as opposed to being based on their desire to improve SPEM
and epf? If not, I would suggest that we all not cast aspersions on
other peoples' motives, but rather stick to the technical and practical
pros and cons of the standard and project. After all, any problems not
fixed now are highly likely to be with us for quite some time, as
evidenced by such things as UML's approach to aggregation. ;-)
Don Firesmith
Chair of OPFRO
Peter Haumer wrote:
Hello.
I am presenting our latest SPEM 2.0
submission (get the document at
http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/06-04-05)
to the OMG on April 26th at the OMG meeting in St. Louis.
This specification is very close to
the meta-model that we implemented for EPF Composer. However, it
also already incorporates some of the changes and future directions
that
we discussed in Atlanta (e.g. around the modeling of Tools), simplifies
the usage of categories having no standard ones, but allowing modelers
to define their own, additional associations for Activities to allow
process
without method content, etc.
As we discussed in Atlanta, EPF
might
go into different directions in the future, but it would be good for
EPF
to state that is currently based on an OMG specification. In that
respect, it would be very helpful to our submission if most companies
working
in EPF would actually officially support it.
I have not asked this before,
because
the submission process seemed to go smoothly and this submission was
intended
to be the final one. However, in a new development companies who
seem to be negatively impacted by a successful EPF project come forward
and want to start their own specification work. This initiative is
started by Osellus and Fujitsu. They claim support from Microsoft
and Sun. Thus, it would be good if we could add your names on our
side as supporters.
Thank you so much for your positive
or negative reply by Thursday 20th.
Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.
______________________________________________________________
Rational Software | IBM Software Group
PETER HAUMER, Dr. rer. nat.
RUP Development, Cupertino, CA
Tel/Fax: +1 408 863-8716
______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
|
