Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[m2m-dev] Re: FW: Modeling M2M - IP Log Submission for Helios & CQ Alignment
Hi

List looks pretty good.

[qvt-relations aka QVTd with QVTc and QVTr sub-sub-domains is not part of the Helios train.]

List of course throws up some queries.

QVTo has been very enthusiastic on OMG spec reference CQs, which I didn't think needed a CQ. It was just because QVTr cut and paste a 10 page example that I pushed a CQ through for RelToCore. If these CQs are really necessary then perhaps EMF and OCL and ... need to PB on the OMG/MOF CQ, and OCL and ... needs to PB on the OMG/OCL CQ.

The RoyalAndLoyal example CQ'd for the OCL support in QVTr has migrated with the OCL support to an MDT/OCL example. Does MDT/OCL need a PB CQ or should the CQ be reassigned to MDT/OCL?

While discussing PBs, I've noticed a lot of low level Apache PB CQs going past. If MDT/OCL uses Xtext which uses Xpand which uses MWE which uses Apache Logging. Does MDT/OCL have to have a PB CQ for every CQ that Xtext or Xpand or MWE has? I assumed that when project X was fully CQs, that any project that used just X and its own code automatically had transitive approval of whatever X had had approved.

    Regards

        Ed Willink


On 02/06/2010 22:19, Ed Merks wrote:
Sharon,

I'm pretty sure I did this assignment correctly.  Someone on the CC list will correct me if I'm wrong.  One doubt I have is whether some or all of the specification CQs need to be duplicated for the two QVT projects.

Regards,
Ed


Sharon Corbett wrote:

Hello again Frederic:

 

Radak and William have kindly submitted their IP logs for the Helios Review.  Unfortunately, we did not hear back from you regarding where to move the current CQs filed against M2M generally.  All CQs must be moved from the sub project level to a component level.  As indicated previously this is a gate to the review of the IP Logs for atl and qvt.oml now.

 

There are not very many CQs.  You may very well be able to identify where to move the CQs based on who entered them.


We really need to do this work before the IP logs can be reviewed.


I hope to hear from you very soon.
Regards,
Sharon

 

From: Sharon Corbett [mailto:sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:29 PM
To: 'frederic.jouault@xxxxxxxx'
Cc: 'Ed Merks'
Subject: Modeling M2M - IP Log Submission for Helios

 

Hi Frederic:

 

I’ve reviewed the CQs for Modeling M2M and they all appear to be aligned at the sub project level with the exception of one.  CQs must now be aligned at the component level.  This needs to be adjusted prior to submitting the project’s IP Log for Helios.  

 

As you can imagine, it will be unproductive to try and deal with this at IP log submission time.  Therefore, we want to help the projects get this task completed before logs are to be submitted.  As such, I’m attaching a spreadsheet for you of all M2M CQs.   If you can simply indicate where the CQs should be moved to, I’ll go ahead and make the necessary changes for you.  If there is an overlap in a CQ and more than one project requires it, a “reuse/piggyback” CQ will need to entered for the overlap.

 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,
Sharon

 

Sharon Corbett
Intellectual Property Analyst
Eclipse Foundation Inc.
Tel:  613-224-9461 ext. 232

 



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2913 - Release Date: 06/02/10 10:57:00

Back to the top