[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [epf-dev] OMG, SPEM, SEMAT, and EPF
|
Sorry for the delayed response to this.
At this point, the only definite submission
will be that from the SEMAT folks.
IBM hasn't decided on a strategy - in
part it may depend on what EPF committers want to do, which is one topic
for tomorrow's meeting.
Bruce MacIsaac
Manager RMC Method Content
bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx
408-250-3037 (cell)
From:
| "Chris Armstrong" <chris.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
To:
| "'Eclipse Process Framework Project
Developers List'" <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
Date:
| 07/05/2011 07:33 AM
|
Subject:
| Re: [epf-dev] OMG, SPEM, SEMAT, and
EPF
|
Sent by:
| epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Bruce, seems like things
got a little better for leveraging SPEM. Do we know anything about what
submission teams are being formed and if we need to form a separate one?
Thanks, Chris ~:|
From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Bruce Macisaac
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 11:25 AM
To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
Subject: Re: [epf-dev] OMG, SPEM, SEMAT, and EPF
After some revisions, the OMG voted to accept the RFP, now called "A
Foundation for the Agile Creation and Enactment of Software Engineering
Methods".
The final version of the RFP doesn't insist on updating SPEM, but neither
does it preclude it, as did the earlier versions.
Also the RFP now explicitly asks for elements from SPEM to be used, and
to provide guidelines for migration from SPEM-based practices and methods.
See the paragraphs below:
6.5.2.1.5 SPEM 2.0 metamodel reuse
Proposals shall reuse elements of
the SPEM 2.0 metamodel where appropriate. Where an apparently appropriate
concept is not reused, proposals shall document the reason for creating
substitute model elements.
6.5.3.2 Existing Practices
and Methods
Respondents shall provide a guideline
for how existing SPEM-based practices and methods, and possibly other representations,
can be migrated to the new proposed specification.
6.7
Issues to be discussed
b. Submissions not based
on SPEM 2.0 should discuss why they did not use SPEM and clearly describe
and demonstrate the main differentiators.
We now need to decide whether or not to submit a response to this RFP.
Bruce MacIsaac
Manager RMC Method Content
bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx
408-250-3037 (cell)_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev