Dave,
I’ll be at the meeting from Monday to Wednesday, but will be
unavailable all day Monday. So Tuesday morning would work for me.
Cheers,
Kenn
Hussey
Program Manager, Modeling and Design Solutions
Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. | www.embarcadero.com
82 Peter Street, Second Floor | Toronto, ON
M5V 2G5
Kenn.Hussey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Office: 416-593-1585 x9296 Mobile: 613-301-9105
From:
mdt-sbvr.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mdt-sbvr.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Dave Carlson
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 11:46 AM
To: 'SBVR developer list'
Subject: RE: [mdt-sbvr.dev] Thoughts about two approaches to modeling
theMeaning & Representation (MRV) part of SBVR
My apologies for not responsing to this thread sooner. Some
urgent personal matters required me to take off a week or so, and I am still
digging out...
I will be attending the OMG meeting in Santa Clara, CA next week,
arriving late Sunday and leaving Friday afternoon. Mark and Stan, will
you be there? Kenn? Can we plan a meeting to dicuss these design
alternatives? I am unavailable Tuesday afternoon and all day Wednesday
next week; I must attend the Open Health Tools board meeting that is co-located
with OMG (see www.openhealthtools.org).
If anyone has an interest in business modeling for healthcare (BPMN and SBVR),
I would also like to discuss that.
Regarding Mark's comment below, my greatest concern about using the
EMF extension approach is (1) prevents, or complicates, use of many other
EMF frameworks for validation, search, editor generation, edit transactions,
etc., and (2) more difficult learning curve that will prevent other tool
developers and product vendors from using this metamodel implementation.
I believe that it is essential for us to summarize several use
cases for end-user tooling that will be implemented on top of this SBVR tooling
metamodel. How do these decisions help or hinder creation of
"structured english" editors and publishing tools? Search and
repository tools? Transformation to/from UML, OCL, or other design
models? Transformation to/from OWL and ODM? Transformation to/from
the SBVR exchange metamodel and serialization format? Other tooling use
cases?
The principle downside I see with the EMF extension approach is the risk that
future changes in EMF could break the MRV implementation. This risk arises from
the fact that the implementation depends upon some aspects of the EMF design.
On the other hand, the EMF design is pretty open, so it would be hard to change
it in significant ways without breaking lots of other code.
--------------------------------
Mark H. Linehan
STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation
IBM Research
phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038
internet: mlinehan@xxxxxxxxxx
|