Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
AW: [jwt-dev] EclipseCon Abstract

Hi Chris, 
 
thanks for your comments. Please find attached my comments to your comments ;-) 
 
Make Your Business[0]Processes Executable!

Business managers model their processes often as[1] an abstract version. They are not concerned about how those will be executed later on (and they shouldn't be!). The actual execution information[2] will[3] be added by the technical staff afterwards. But what happens if the modeled process shall be deployed on different process engines? Each vendor requires different data which has to[4] be added to the process model.

The Eclipse Java Workflow Tooling (JWT) project answers these requirements in its EMF / GEF-based Workflow Editor by providing support for different views on the workflow, e.g. technical or business, that reflect the role of the user, [5] and flexible model aspects[6] that allow easy customization to adapt it to handle specificities of target runtime platforms and existing data, as well as of modeled business domains.

The process model also builds the basis for automatically[7] generating XPDL- or WSBPEL-code [8]. We will also show the possibility to monitor the process during execution[9] as well as we'll demonstrate our integration with the Eclipse STP project (e.g. by generating code for the STP-Intermediate Model) and within Service Oriented Architectures[10] more generally.

[0] refer to business processes specifically? 

 

FL: I found the briefness of the title good which is why I removed "business" from the title (which I had at the beginning, too). If you don't mind, I would prefer leaving the title as it is.

 

[1] absolutely not sure here, it’s been a long time since the last english lesson ;) 

 

FL: I guess you're right. "as" is better than "in".

 

[2] maybe change to something like “information that is needed by process engine that runs the process” to make the meaning of the term clearer for people which are not familiar with which kind of information has to be added to abstract business process to make them executable  

[3] I think changing “can” to “will” could highlight that this is the usual way to go 

 

FL:  OK, let's change it into: "The actual information that is needed by a process engine running the process will be added by the technical staff afterwards".

 

[4] Stress the fact that this is not a pleasant business ;) 

 

FL: Agreed.

 

[5] Insert this? 

 

FL: okay, but putting the "that reflect the role of the user" in brackets? "...for different views on the workflow, e.g. technical or business (in order to reflect the role of the user)"?

 

[6] I’m not sure if someone who is not familiar with EMF knows the business process is represented as a model. Maybe keeping it more abstract like “and an easy and flexible aspect-oriented customization mechanism that allows to handle…” 

 

FL: Agreed. "the role of the user) and an easy and flexible aspect-oriented customization mechanism that allows to handle specifities of target runtime plattforms and existing data as well as of modeled business domains"?

 

[7] Always good if something happens automatically 

 

FL: Okay.

 

[8] “…that can be executed by compatible process engines…”? 

 

FL: We already said that processes are executed on a process engine in the first part, so I would rather leave it as it is here.

 

[9] just my personal preference 

 

FL: Fine.

 

[10] what would you think of changing STP and SOA, starting with SOA in general and then referring to the STP project? 

 

FL: Why not? Something like "we'll demonstrate our integration within Service Oriented Architectures in general and the Eclipse STP project (e.g. by generating code for the STP-Intermediate Model) in particular."?

 

Could you then change it in the submission system, Chris?

 

Thanks and best regards,

 

Florian


Back to the top