[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[jwt-dev] Re: STP IM and JWT metamodel
- From: Adrian Mos <adrian.mos@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:53:09 +0200
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Andrea gave you the detailed answers for your questions, so I just
want to say that if you're looking for help with transformations you
can definitely count on us. So if you have any questions about
transforming elements from JWT to STP-IM or the other way around, feel
free to fire them up on the STP mailing list, you'll get an answer
Also, to follow up on what Andrea said and what I noted previously,
the STP-IM is a generic "transporter" model, intended to bridge the
variety of SOA editors in STP. So, the semantics of properties to
different elements can differ based on the transformation that is
going to use them. The idea is that we do not try to offer all the
semantics in the IM, rather just the means to attach it, so that we
can keep a high level of generality while still preserving the most
important SOA concepts as top-level.
Looking forward to working with you guys,
On Dec 21, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Andrea Zoppello wrote:
See the comments inline.
Florian Lautenbacher ha scritto:
Hi Adrian, hi Andrea,
thanks for your helpful clarification about the metamodel of STP
IM. I now
had a closer look at the metamodel in your SVN and it is (in my
much better designed than the one that is shown on your web site.
the core concepts are very similar to the core metamodel of JWT
be found on ). In STP IM you got a Process which contains *
Steps and *
Transitions. Each step has a name, a description, a number of
sourceTransitions and targetTransitions as well as several
observableAttributes. You also got ControlServices with subclasses
SplitControl or JoinControl. There can be normal Transitions or
TransitionsUnderCondition. And (nearly?) everything is a configurable
Now looking at the JWT metamodel it is very much alike: here
everything is a
ModelElement. There are ActivityNodes which are connected via
(using source, target, in and out with same cardinality as
sourceTransitions, targetTransitions etc. in STP IM). There can be
types of ActivityNodes: one would be an Action (probably a Step in
IM) or it
could be a ControlNode such as a ForkNode or a JoinNode. An
might have a Guard (making it a "TransitionUnderCondition") whereas
Guard is specified in a GuardSpecification (with only a proprietary
Regarding your description of Properties and ObservableAttributes I
that data that is necessary for execution (which might have been
BPMN and shall be transformed into BPEL e.g.) is added as a
property to the
relevant step, am I right?
For example for a Step that is configured with Service
[StartService] ServiceBinding [HTTP-InputBindingComponent] the
properties will be driven by the HTTP-InputBindingComponet, So the
step will have properties like:
and so on.
Quite different is the concept of relevant data:
Relevant data are extracted when the process is executed, evluating
expression on messages ( exchanged by endpoint in the case of Jbi )
or variable in the case of ( BPEL).
An example of relevant data is customerID extracted by /RECORD/
Thanks for clarification about the owner attribute. Yes, I was more
about a participant or role than about an owner. Is this data (e.g.
which isAs i say in previous post we'e not yet provided in the stp
intermediate model the concept of participiant role.
available in a swimlane or pool in BPMN) then added as a property
to each Step?
BTW i think that we could support this in BPMN editor in two ways:
1) Using the lane ( ant this will add some additional property on
the step, or better it will configure a particular
RolebAssignedStep, HumanTaskStep )
2) Get a view with a participiant list that we could drag anbd drop
on the activities
We cannot use the BPMN pool concept beacuse a pool in the im is
mapped in to a process.
I agree with Adrian and Marc that a first step would be having aYou're welcome. Ask what you want???
transformation from JWT to STP IM (and the other way round).
the metamodels are quite similar, this should not be so hard. Here
at JWT we
need to discuss who will be responsible for this task. Maybe
somebody of STP
might be able to assist us here!?
I am still wondering how you are planning to include the
information fromIntermediate Model is a very generic model so you could have
situations where some properties ( for example
one metamodel in a way that it is clear in a next transformation
it should go. So, if I specify the owner of a step in a pool or
BPMN, how is this information kept in STP IM so I can work with
generating e.g. BPEL or XPDL-code? I guess you need some predefined
as properties that both model transformations use!? Or will there
query language (such as RQL or SPARQL) where you can find the
Best regards and looking forward to some more fruitful discussions,
of the step ) will be important by code generator A and others will
be need by code generator B.
The concept is that IM bring you the information in a very generic
way, than is
responsibility of specific code generator to transform that
information in something executable.
To bring you an example, now i'm working in generating servicemix
service assembly applications from intermediate
model, and it's my codegenerator plugins that knows ( for example
how to organize service units, how to make cfg files
and so on .... ).
I don't know if it's clear, if you've some doubt please write me.
Von: Andrea Zoppello [mailto:andrea.zoppello@xxxxxx] Gesendet:
Montag, 17. Dezember 2007 10:15
An: Florian Lautenbacher
Cc: Adrian Skehill; Adrian Mos
Betreff: Re: Current state of STP IM?
Sorry for the late response but i'm just come back from Javapolis.
See comments inline
Adrian Skehill ha scritto:
I think version on the wiki is not updated. The version that we're
Florian Lautenbacher wrote:
I am wondering what the current state of the STP Intermediate
model is? Is the version on the Wiki  up to date?
commit will be the really the first version.
If so, I am curious why a step is part of a process, but the
transition is not?
And, on the other hand, why there is only one edge between a step
and a transition with cardinality *. In many other standards
(like UML activity diagrams) there are always two edges between a
node (=ActivityNode in UML) and a transition (=ActivityEdge in
UML) specifying that a transition has exactly two ends
(cardinality of 1 at each edge)?
In the version that we're going to commit a process will have a set
and a set of transitions. A transition wil have a source step and a
step then in the A step there will be two inverse relations a
called sourceTransitions 1.* ( all transition for which the step is
step ) and a realtion called targetTransition ( all transition for
step is target )
How are the conditions at TransitionUnderCondition specified? Are
these boolean conditions connected with AND, OR, XOR and NOT? Or
is this open to each implementation (BPMN, SCA, JBI, etc.)?
The transition under condition will have a "Condition" ( Condition
entity ) where a condition could be an "ExpressionCondition" ( a
expressed in some language Xpath, groovy, or a condition on header
In the actual version of the Intermediate Model we've introduced the
Do only Transitions have ObservableAttributes? How about
attributes that are specified at a step?
relation between Observable Attribute and Step ( 1..* each step
one or more observable attribute ).
By the way what's important is to clarify the difference between
"ObservableAttribute" and "Property" of a Step.
Properties are information needed to configure the step in a
runtime,and the properties set depends by ServiceBinding.
Observable attribute are data that will be extracted when the
be executed to be visualuzed and monitored, by monitoring tools.
Does a process or a step has no owner, but only a service?
A process is a subclass of service so process could have owner.
What's important is to make distinct the concept of "Owner" from the
concept of "Participiant/Actor/Role" as we mean when we talk about
and in general process that require "human task".
At the moment we've not in the model the concept of "Particpiant/
for the support of worflow concept, but in the future we're going to
introduce something about.
Basically ( it's just an idea that we need to discuss with other
) we'll introduce the concept of role, and a subclass of Step
entity ( let
me say RoleAssignedStep or HumanTaskStep ) where we model the
beteween a step and a role.
For "Owner" instead we mean the provider of a service ( process )
as it is
in service registry ( UDDI ) world.
But this part is not complete yet.
Looking forward to your answers,
Feel free to contact me if you need other information.
-JWT project lead-
Research & Innovation Division
*Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A.
Corso Stati Uniti, 23/C - 35127 Padova - Italy
Phone: +39-049.8692511 Fax:+39-049.8692566