Hello Florian, all,
Thanks a lot for your welcome! I’m excited for the chance
to work with you all and of course, I’d be happy to collaborate with your
group at the University!
To begin, I will be studying the existing BPMN to STP-IM which has
been implemented using the EMF generated Java APIs of both metamodels, in order
to understand it better and then implement the STP-IM to SCA transformation
with Adrian. The short term goal is to enable to user to model a business
process and obtain the architecture model of a composite application supporting
this process. I will try to document these conceptual mappings in the wiki as
much as I can and let you know ;)
About the transformation mechanism, the EMF generated APIs is
the most flexible and straightforward option for us developers, however it’d
be nice to have the transformation rules separate from other concerns such as
reading/persisting models, accessing annotations etc., and also have them
comply with OMG’s QVT standard. As such, using ATL would make a better
choice in the long run, although we have to evaluate how this would work inside
STP. The only thing I’m not sure at the moment is about the best way to
launch ATL transformations programmatically, whether invoking Ant scripts or
using the ATL APIs. Does anyone have a final word on this?
Also, I have created a page describing the current STP-IM plug-in
structure as it stands today in the SVN repository, for all of us to benefit [1].
I hope you can take a look and provide the necessary edits! Thanks a lot!
-Juan
[1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/STP/IM_Component/Plug-in_Structure
From: Florian
Lautenbacher [mailto:florian.lautenbacher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 10:03 AM
To: 'Java Workflow Toolbox'; 'Andrea Zoppello'
Cc: 'Juan Cadavid'; 'Marius Brendle'
Subject: AW: AW: [jwt-dev] Re: STP/IM questions/help
Hi Adrian, hi Andrea,
thanks for your support in our questions. I can understand that you
are only integrating new concepts into STP-IM in a few months, but this makes
it of course hard for us at the moment to decide which concepts to use for the
transformations. So, we are unsure whether we simply introduce new concepts for
the moment in our copy of the STP-IM (to cover the workflow aspects) and
contribute them within a bug to the development of STP-IM or whether we simply
stay with its current layout (where it is sometimes difficult to identify all
concepts we need). Probably, we will only implement a short subset for the
moment and when the STP-IM has been polished, then we include the remaining
parts.
Thanks for changing Transition to a Configurable element and also
thanks for your assistance with Conditions, Owner, Service and the
ecore_diagram-file.
And, of course: hello to Juan Cadavid who will work on
transformation starting with STP-IM and going somewhere else ;-) What exactly
is the focus of the first transformation? BPEL? SCA? BPMN? How are these
transformations done? Using ATL, QVT? Maybe Juan and our group here at the
University could benefit by asking questions concerning the transformations to
each other!?
Till next Friday all conceptual work will be finished, so we will
have decided then which concepts from JWT will be transformed into what
concept in STP-IM and after that the implementation will start (most probably
using ATL). Here my students will have a look on the already implemented JWT to
BPMN transformations by Stéphane and will implement their transformations in a
similar way.
I will keep you updated as soon as we got some news.
Best regards,
Florian
Von:
jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag
von Adrian Mos
Gesendet: 06 May 2008 12:35
An: Java Workflow Toolbox; Andrea Zoppello
Cc: Juan Cadavid; Marius Brendle
Betreff: Re: AW: [jwt-dev] Re: STP/IM questions/help
Hi Guys,
Sorry for the late reply, I've been away until this
morning.
First of all it's great to see that you guys are working on
this, and it's only natural that questions arise. As you have guessed it, the
IM is not yet completely polished and it's also trough feedback like this that
we can improve it. I also want to take the opportunity to introduce to you Juan
Cadavid (in CC) who will work on BPMN/BPEL/SCA/etc :) transformations using the
STP-IM. He has recently been awarded an internship scholarship through the
Google Summer of Code to work on this. Juan, perhaps it would be a good idea to
subscribe to the jwt mailing lists so that you can follow this relationship
between JWT and STP-IM more closely.
As Andrea said, the Owner and Service Classification have
been introduced with the concept of UDDI in mind and I also think it's probably
best we don't use them for workflow modelling, unless of course you have a
strong need for them, in which case we can try and come up with the best
solution to this.
Andrea has already made the change to make the Transition a
configurable element, please let us know if this helps and what other problems
you encounter with the transformations. It would also be great if you could
keep us updated with the progress of this in general so that we can follow up
with suggestions and so on.
INRIA
Rhone-Alpes
655
avenue de l'Europe - Montbonnot
38 334
Saint Ismier Cedex France
On May 6, 2008, at 9:13 AM, Andrea Zoppello wrote:
Hi Florian,
See the comments inline
1) Owner and Service Classification were not introduced with the concept of
workflow in "mind", but were
introduced to support in future the concept of "service registries like
uddi", so in my opinion it's better you don't use these
two entities for modeling workflow scenario.
My suggestion is not to use these two entities for modeling workflow enitities
in IM
BTW in the next month, we're going to exactly introcude workflow concept like
role, "Human Based Step" on IM beacuse we need them
Unfortunately, now i'm quite busy and i've not so much time to do that.
Basically my idea is to introduce a sub class of step ( RoleBasedStep ) to
model workflow activities
2) If you take the code from sv you could look at the emf model in graphical
way
looking at the stpmodel.ecore_diagram file
3) If you look at the diagran you could find that a
TransitionUnderCondition is a Transition with a Condition entity associated
where
a condition could be A PropertyCondition ( subclass of Condition ) or an
_expression_ Condition ( subclass of condition ) where you could find
an _expression_ language attribute.
4) At the moment Transition are not "ConfigurableElement" but i think
i'm going to change this this today so Transition will
be ConfigurationElement.
Hope this help.
Andrea Zoppello
Florian Lautenbacher ha scritto:
Hi Andrea,
thanks for your fast reply. Since we want to have a mature
transformation,
it is difficult for us to build on something that might be
removed or might
be created in the future :-)
So I guess we will currently focus on Owner and
ServiceClassification
without considering that those might be subject of change in
the future. You
said that TransitionUnderCondition is used for a BPMN
Exclusive Gateway?
Where exactly do you specify the condition then? Is this a
property of the
TransitionUnderCondition (as a Configurable Element)? Is
there a way to
specify which (_expression_) language this condition is based
on?
Mostly we are using the .ecore-file from the SVN, but
sometimes its easier
to view it graphically in the wiki...
Thanks for your assistance and best regards,
Florian
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Im
Auftrag von Andrea Zoppello
Gesendet: 05 May 2008 17:06
An: Marius Brendle
Cc: jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [jwt-dev] Re: STP/IM questions/help
Hi,
1) Owner and ServiceClassification are really not used at
the moment, and i
think we're going to think and define well in future when
we're going to
approach to model workflow scenarios in IntermediateModel.
My personal idea is to add a Role entity and to have a
subclass of "Step"
called "RoleAssignedStep" or something similar
that will define that a
particular step will be assigned and will be performed by a
specific role
2) A "TransitionUnderCondition" must be used when
the transition is
conditioned to some rule to happen ( we use this ) for
exampleto model the
transition outcoming from a bpmn exclusive gateway.
3) We choose all the entity to be subclass of configurable
element, so each
element could have properties.
Maybe the wiki documentation is a little out of date, btw
the version used
is the one you could find in the svn repository.
Hope this helps.
Andrea Zoppello
Marius Brendle ha scritto:
Hello Andrea & Adrian,
we're working on a project of Florian Lauterbacher at the
University in Augsburg (Germany). Our goal is to do a model transformation of
the JWT (AgilPro) meta-model to the STP Intermediate Model.
Even in the recent SVN snapshot, there are several model
elements
(classes) like Owner, ServiceClassification,
TransitionUnderCondition and ObservableAttrible without any attributes! Could
it be possible that the STP/IM is incomplete until now at this point? Or is
this a wanted design decision by you? Or should we do some decisions by
ourselves? Perhaps all the above mentioned classes are also of the type
"ConfigurableElement" (so addional properties could be added), but
this is not the case in the model or the Wiki at this point!
How will the "ControlServices" be handled? In the
Wiki there is mentioned that this is not completed till now...
Thank you for the help in advice!
Kind regards,
Christian, Stephan and Marius
--
*Andrea Zoppello*
___________________________________________
<www.spagoworld.org>
Spagic Architect
___________________________________________
Architect
Research & Innovation Division
*Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A.
*
Corso Stati Uniti, 23/C - 35127 Padova - Italy
Phone: +39-049.8692511 Fax:+39-049.8692566
*www.eng.it
www.spagoworld.org*
_______________________________________________
jwt-dev mailing list
jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-dev