[news.eclipse.modeling.mdt] Re: [Announce] BPMN2 component proposal

["Kenn Hussey" <Kenn.Hussey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hugues,

Thank you for your feedback on the proposal! The goal of this component is 
not to develop a modeler, but rather an implementation of (what will become) 
the new BPMN2 metamodel that conforms to the specification. It's my 
understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong!) that the metamodel in the 
BPMN subproject of STP does not currently conform to the (existing) BPMN 
specification, and indeed it's unclear whether compliance is one of the 
objectives of your subproject. The primary goal of the MDT subproject is to 
host (reference) implementations of OMG specifications - that's why, to me, 
an implementation of the new BPMN2 metamodel belongs in MDT. As you have 
said, GMF facilitates the separation of concerns between semantics and 
notation, so in my mind this is a great opportunity for cross-project 
collaboration - as stated in the proposal, we hope to work closely with the 
STP project in shaping the future of BPMN at Eclipse.

The BPMN 2.0 specification is still in its RFP stage which, as you point 
out, means that a draft of the specification is not yet available; in fact, 
responses to the RFP have yet to be submitted (although I'm told that this 
should happen in the first half of 2008). While it is true that developing a 
component based on a specification that has not yet been adopted presents 
its challenges, I feel that this represents an opportunity to increase 
collaboration between Eclipse and the OMG. Rather than waiting for a 
specification to be finalized, and realizing (perhaps too late) that a 
number of practical concerns have been overlooked, we will be able to 
provide meaningful feedback to the OMG as the specifcation is developed, and 
at the same time produce an implementation of a specification that we know 
works. Some of the parties interested in this proposal are also active 
members of the OMG, so we hope to use these channels in an appropriate way 
to participate in the OMG specification process...

Kenn

"Hugues Malphettes" <hmalphettes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:d68bf7dd7c5bf147cfbcf3fe2ba86efe$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi Kenn,
>
> I am the lead developer for the STP-BPMN modeler: 
> http://www.eclipse.org/stp/bpmn/
>
> I am excited to see interest in the BPMN modeler developed in eclipse.
> I am puzzled however at the idea of starting a new project at this point.
>
> There is a community in eclipse working on BPMN.
> ------------------------------------------------
> We have in STP a community interested in BPMN and its application.
> We would love to have the proposed contributers of this proposal join our 
> efforts.
> We are definitely looking for contributors.
> Please let us know what problems were identified in our modeler.
>
> On the implementation side: GMF nicely decouples the domain model from its 
> visualization. Even if we were to find out that a new domain model is 
> needed, we would benefit from our common efforts on the user-interactions 
> specific to GMF. That is where in my experience we spend the most time.
>
> We do feel quite opened minded and you can notice that the STP-PMC accepts 
> new contributors regularly: we could make a BPMN-2.0 branch if that is 
> what it takes. Otherwise let's use, the stp-dev mailing list, the 
> stp-newsgroup, the wiki, the website and all the eclipse infrastructure.
>
> BPMN-2.0 has not reached the stage where a public draft is available.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please correct me if I am wrong and do send me a link to a BPMN-2.0 draft; 
> I have not found it.
>
> In that case it will be hard to discuss the specification outside of the 
> OMG itself. In fact I would even worry about IP if we start discussing non 
> publicly available documents.
>
> The advantage of this situation is: the OMG can make sure that discussions 
> are constrained to interested OMG members.
> I think it would not help to distract them from their process before a 
> public draft is accessible.
>
>
> Thanks for your attention,
> Hugues.
>
>
>