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

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

Oops, I've actually only been involved with the UML2 project/component for 
just over four years (although sometimes it feels more like six years or 
longer)... ;)

Kenn

"Kenn Hussey" <Kenn.Hussey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:fkhms8$uq6$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hugues,
>
> There is actually a standard metamodel and serialization format for the 
> current BPMN 1.x specification - the BPDM (Business Process Definition 
> Metamodel) specification...
>
> Let me reiterate that this proposal is about providing an implementation 
> of the metamodel (only), not a modeling tool. IMHO, it is important that 
> BPM tool users/developers have the flexibility to choose whether they want 
> to (re)use and/or extend an existing BPMN tool at Eclipse (i.e. yours) or 
> whether they want to build their own, in which case it should be possible 
> to consume just a metamodel implementation. In either case, I think it 
> would be ideal to have one standard-compliant metamodel implementation at 
> Eclipse, and we are offering to provide it. I don't see how providing an 
> implementation of the metamodel that can be used independently of SOA 
> tools is confusing; end users that are looking for a BPMN modeler can 
> continue to obtain it from STP, whereas developers that are looking to 
> build their own standard-compliant tool (for whatever reason) will now 
> have the option to do so. Hopefully, future versions of the BPMN modeler 
> in STP will be based on the metamodel in MDT, in which case we will have 
> made your job easier! ;)
>
> I am quite willing/able to deal with questions about which versions of 
> projects/components at Eclipse correspond to which versions of OMG 
> specifications, having done so for over six years for the UML2 
> project/component. On the short term, it's clear (at least to me): STP 
> BPMN supports BPMN 1.0/1.1 and MDT BPMN2 (and hopefully future versions of 
> STP BPMN) will support BPMN 2.0.
>
> Kenn
>
> "Hugues Malphettes" <hmalphettes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
> news:1302721b35b633c8192197cc4d77f6d8$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Kenn,
>>
>> Thanks for your answer.
>>
>> Relationship with the OMG regarding on a non-drafted specification.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I agree that it is best for the community to have a voice before those
>> specifications are finalized:after all we are the one who end-up
>> having to support them !
>>
>> However regarding the OMG, this happens when the specification is
>> available as a draft release. At this point the community is welcome
>> to influence something that it can review.
>> If there is a need to involve non-OMG members outside of the OMG
>> processes before that, then it is up to the OMG to change their
>> process.
>> I don't see an eclipse-project being productive in that area.
>>
>> In fact last year at eclipsecon the relationship of Eclipse and the
>> OMG was discussed:
>> http://www.eclipsecon.org/summiteurope2006/presentations/ESE2006-EclipseModelingSymposium14_OMGStandards.pdf
>> From what I understand these discussions are still going on.
>> The symposium between eclipse and the OMG will certainly help.
>> Maybe once we know more in that area, the relevance of a specific project 
>> to deal with the OMG's own process will be clearer.
>>
>>
>> BPMN-metamodel and STP-BPMN modeler.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> The original goal of the project was to get out of the door a BPMN
>> modeler for the eclipse community.
>> Let's note that the 1.0 and 1.1 specs do not enforce a particular format, 
>> there is no xml-schema, no ecore, no serialization format, no namespaces.
>> We chose to have a core-semantic model that does not enforce the whole
>> specification by itself.
>> This way we are able to support on the top of it the rest of the
>> specification and in fact several versions of the specification.
>> We also make sure that people interested in using parts of the
>> specification only can use the modeler as the base to their product.
>>
>> So for example we decided that the properties are not hard-coded in
>> the meta-model.
>> Instead they are supported as annotations.
>> We chose also to support all activities and event-shape with the 
>> combination of a single element and an attribute 'activityType'. This is 
>> because it saves 10s of classes and that simplifies enormously the 
>> complexity of the generated modeler.
>>
>> We are aware that we are not supporting the entire BPMN-1.0 spec.
>> We are answering to the community to that regard.
>>
>> When BPMN-2.0 will be drafted accessible publicly we are expecting the
>> community starting with my own employer to push us to support it.
>>
>>
>> This brings me to the most important point: starting another BPMN
>> effort outside of the existing STP-BPMN project will certainly confuse
>> our community and freeze the adoption.
>>
>> This tentative target release is June 2009.
>> In the mean time:
>> Should people wait for this other effort to go somewhere? Is the
>> STP-BPMN modeler compliant to the standard (answer: yes BPMN-1.0 and
>> soon 1.1 minus the bugs)?
>> Are you ready to discuss with all potential contributors are users
>> what standard is implemented what version of it and its actual
>> availability to the public?
>> By doing this effort in the existing project we will make sure we
>> don't spend energy clarifying this.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Hugues.
>>
>
>