Home » Archived » EPF » Two submissions for SPEM2
| Two submissions for SPEM2 [message #18650] |
Wed, 13 September 2006 06:46  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: user.domain.com
Hi,
Does anyone know the SPEM work progresses? I just noticed that now the
work now has two similar sumbmissions, One from IBM and one from SUN,
MS, Borland etc.
cheers
/anders
|
|
|
| Re: Two submissions for SPEM2 [message #18673 is a reply to message #18650] |
Thu, 14 September 2006 04:42  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: itsme213.hotmail.com
<user@domain.com> wrote in message news:ee89fu$r73$1@utils.eclipse.org...
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know the SPEM work progresses? I just noticed that now the
> work now has two similar sumbmissions, One from IBM and one from SUN, MS,
> Borland etc.
Is EPF committed to track this process and to support the eventual standard?
Thanks.
|
|
| |
| Re: Two submissions for SPEM2 [message #18783 is a reply to message #18738] |
Fri, 15 September 2006 17:17 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: kamal.osellus.com
Anders, Sophi
Also for you information, here is the link to the discussions:
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/epf-dev/msg00824.html
Here is the link to the second SPEM 2.0 submission:
http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2006-09-01
In our view it offers a number of advantages for being adopted as the EPF
meta-model of choice.
Thanks
Kamal
---
Kamal Ahluwalia
Osellus Inc.
www.osellus.com
"Peter Haumer" <phaumer@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:eech0e$rvd$1@utils.eclipse.org...
> There is already a discussion thread on SPEM in this forum. See there for
> more details and opinions. Also some of the meeting minutes in the EPF
> site discuss the topic. The short of it is that EPF would like to align
> with SPEM2, but decides on it once it is accepted and the EPF committers
> see clear technical benefits of adopting it.
>
> The status is that key EPF members and together with other OMG members
> submitted another proposal to the OMG on Sept. 5th, which you can download
> from here: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2006-08-01
>
> It incorporates feedback from Borland which now supports this submission
> team. Microsoft is not an OMG member.
>
> --
>
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Peter Haumer.
>
> ____________________________________________________________ __
>
> PETER HAUMER
> IBM | Eclipse Process Framework Committer
> ____________________________________________________________ __
> <user@domain.com> wrote in message news:ee89fu$r73$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Does anyone know the SPEM work progresses? I just noticed that now the
>> work now has two similar sumbmissions, One from IBM and one from SUN, MS,
>> Borland etc.
>>
>>
>> cheers
>> /anders
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Two submissions for SPEM2 [message #18827 is a reply to message #18783] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 10:28 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: user.domain.com
Hi Kamal,
I saw that you didn't like the concept of method plugin. Could you
elaborate on why?
It seems as a nice high level concept for method authors so one can
partition the methods in understandable pieces, so Im curious about the
counter-arguments.
thanks
/anders
Kamal Ahluwalia wrote:
> Anders, Sophi
>
>
>
> Also for you information, here is the link to the discussions:
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/epf-dev/msg00824.html
>
>
>
>
> Here is the link to the second SPEM 2.0 submission:
> http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2006-09-01
>
> In our view it offers a number of advantages for being adopted as the EPF
> meta-model of choice.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Kamal
>
> ---
>
> Kamal Ahluwalia
>
> Osellus Inc.
>
> www.osellus.com
>
>
>
>
>
> "Peter Haumer" <phaumer@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:eech0e$rvd$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>> There is already a discussion thread on SPEM in this forum. See there for
>> more details and opinions. Also some of the meeting minutes in the EPF
>> site discuss the topic. The short of it is that EPF would like to align
>> with SPEM2, but decides on it once it is accepted and the EPF committers
>> see clear technical benefits of adopting it.
>>
>> The status is that key EPF members and together with other OMG members
>> submitted another proposal to the OMG on Sept. 5th, which you can download
>> from here: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2006-08-01
>>
>> It incorporates feedback from Borland which now supports this submission
>> team. Microsoft is not an OMG member.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> Peter Haumer.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________ __
>>
>> PETER HAUMER
>> IBM | Eclipse Process Framework Committer
>> ____________________________________________________________ __
>> <user@domain.com> wrote in message news:ee89fu$r73$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Does anyone know the SPEM work progresses? I just noticed that now the
>>> work now has two similar sumbmissions, One from IBM and one from SUN, MS,
>>> Borland etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> /anders
>>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Two submissions for SPEM2 [message #18892 is a reply to message #18827] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 18:52 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: kamal.osellus.com
Hi Anders,
Modular packaging of process assets that can be extended and reused is a key
need of the early SPEM adopter community and the process modeling community
in general.
The mechanism introduced by the IBM submission uses the concept of Plugins,
Configuration, Variability and Variability Types to address this need. In
our opinion this is an overly-complicated solution to meet this requirement.
In our submission, we have proposed an alternative way to meet this need by
well known (and forward compatible from SPEM1.x) concepts of packages,
import dependencies and process components. Having established a namespace
view, the process assets of a package can be extended for use in one or more
workflows. Process Components now act as white box and black box process
assets and can be used to configure larger process components or used in
enactable processes.
Another area of difference between the two proposals is the separation of
process element description versus its usage in a workflow. Again, this is a
well known need that we have addressed without introducing additional
concepts such as Method Content or Managed Content, but by applying the
element definition-usage pattern. We also feel that it is incorrect to limit
agile/adhoc process development from accessing the mechanisms for reuse and
extensionality. The compliance levels mandated by IBM submission impose this
restriction.
In summary, our concern is that the over-complex mechanism to achieve
modularity and reuse coupled by the over emphasis on introducing new
terminology for textual description and content management makes the
meta-model hard to understand for the average user and would cause a low
uptake and casual adoption of the exemplary meta-model. Moreover, by
over-emphasizing content management, the meta-model does not address the key
areas of process enactment and quality frameworks/metrics that are
increasingly demanded by process modeling community.
Thanks
Kamal
Kamal Ahluwalia
Osellus Inc
www.osellus.com
<user@domain.com> wrote in message news:450FC64C.5020301@domain.com...
> Hi Kamal,
>
> I saw that you didn't like the concept of method plugin. Could you
> elaborate on why?
>
> It seems as a nice high level concept for method authors so one can
> partition the methods in understandable pieces, so Im curious about the
> counter-arguments.
>
> thanks
> /anders
>
>
>
> Kamal Ahluwalia wrote:
>> Anders, Sophi
>>
>>
>>
>> Also for you information, here is the link to the discussions:
>> http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/epf-dev/msg00824.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the link to the second SPEM 2.0 submission:
>> http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2006-09-01
>>
>> In our view it offers a number of advantages for being adopted as the EPF
>> meta-model of choice.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Kamal
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Kamal Ahluwalia
>>
>> Osellus Inc.
>>
>> www.osellus.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Peter Haumer" <phaumer@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
>> news:eech0e$rvd$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>>> There is already a discussion thread on SPEM in this forum. See there
>>> for more details and opinions. Also some of the meeting minutes in the
>>> EPF site discuss the topic. The short of it is that EPF would like to
>>> align with SPEM2, but decides on it once it is accepted and the EPF
>>> committers see clear technical benefits of adopting it.
>>>
>>> The status is that key EPF members and together with other OMG members
>>> submitted another proposal to the OMG on Sept. 5th, which you can
>>> download from here: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2006-08-01
>>>
>>> It incorporates feedback from Borland which now supports this submission
>>> team. Microsoft is not an OMG member.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>> Peter Haumer.
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________ __
>>>
>>> PETER HAUMER
>>> IBM | Eclipse Process Framework Committer
>>> ____________________________________________________________ __
>>> <user@domain.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ee89fu$r73$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know the SPEM work progresses? I just noticed that now the
>>>> work now has two similar sumbmissions, One from IBM and one from SUN,
>>>> MS, Borland etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>> /anders
>>>
>>
|
|
|
| Re: Two submissions for SPEM2 [message #565389 is a reply to message #18650] |
Thu, 14 September 2006 04:42 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: itsme213.hotmail.com
<user@domain.com> wrote in message news:ee89fu$r73$1@utils.eclipse.org...
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know the SPEM work progresses? I just noticed that now the
> work now has two similar sumbmissions, One from IBM and one from SUN, MS,
> Borland etc.
Is EPF committed to track this process and to support the eventual standard?
Thanks.
|
|
| |
| Re: Two submissions for SPEM2 [message #565525 is a reply to message #18738] |
Fri, 15 September 2006 17:17 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: kamal.osellus.com
Anders, Sophi
Also for you information, here is the link to the discussions:
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/epf-dev/msg00824.html
Here is the link to the second SPEM 2.0 submission:
http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2006-09-01
In our view it offers a number of advantages for being adopted as the EPF
meta-model of choice.
Thanks
Kamal
---
Kamal Ahluwalia
Osellus Inc.
www.osellus.com
"Peter Haumer" <phaumer@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:eech0e$rvd$1@utils.eclipse.org...
> There is already a discussion thread on SPEM in this forum. See there for
> more details and opinions. Also some of the meeting minutes in the EPF
> site discuss the topic. The short of it is that EPF would like to align
> with SPEM2, but decides on it once it is accepted and the EPF committers
> see clear technical benefits of adopting it.
>
> The status is that key EPF members and together with other OMG members
> submitted another proposal to the OMG on Sept. 5th, which you can download
> from here: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2006-08-01
>
> It incorporates feedback from Borland which now supports this submission
> team. Microsoft is not an OMG member.
>
> --
>
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> Peter Haumer.
>
> ____________________________________________________________ __
>
> PETER HAUMER
> IBM | Eclipse Process Framework Committer
> ____________________________________________________________ __
> <user@domain.com> wrote in message news:ee89fu$r73$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Does anyone know the SPEM work progresses? I just noticed that now the
>> work now has two similar sumbmissions, One from IBM and one from SUN, MS,
>> Borland etc.
>>
>>
>> cheers
>> /anders
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Two submissions for SPEM2 [message #565570 is a reply to message #18783] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 10:28 |
 user
Messages: 296
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Kamal,
I saw that you didn't like the concept of method plugin. Could you
elaborate on why?
It seems as a nice high level concept for method authors so one can
partition the methods in understandable pieces, so Im curious about the
counter-arguments.
thanks
/anders
Kamal Ahluwalia wrote:
> Anders, Sophi
>
>
>
> Also for you information, here is the link to the discussions:
> http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/epf-dev/msg00824.html
>
>
>
>
> Here is the link to the second SPEM 2.0 submission:
> http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2006-09-01
>
> In our view it offers a number of advantages for being adopted as the EPF
> meta-model of choice.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Kamal
>
> ---
>
> Kamal Ahluwalia
>
> Osellus Inc.
>
> www.osellus.com
>
>
>
>
>
> "Peter Haumer" <phaumer@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:eech0e$rvd$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>> There is already a discussion thread on SPEM in this forum. See there for
>> more details and opinions. Also some of the meeting minutes in the EPF
>> site discuss the topic. The short of it is that EPF would like to align
>> with SPEM2, but decides on it once it is accepted and the EPF committers
>> see clear technical benefits of adopting it.
>>
>> The status is that key EPF members and together with other OMG members
>> submitted another proposal to the OMG on Sept. 5th, which you can download
>> from here: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2006-08-01
>>
>> It incorporates feedback from Borland which now supports this submission
>> team. Microsoft is not an OMG member.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> Peter Haumer.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________ __
>>
>> PETER HAUMER
>> IBM | Eclipse Process Framework Committer
>> ____________________________________________________________ __
>> <user@domain.com> wrote in message news:ee89fu$r73$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Does anyone know the SPEM work progresses? I just noticed that now the
>>> work now has two similar sumbmissions, One from IBM and one from SUN, MS,
>>> Borland etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> /anders
>>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Two submissions for SPEM2 [message #565684 is a reply to message #18827] |
Tue, 19 September 2006 18:52 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: kamal.osellus.com
Hi Anders,
Modular packaging of process assets that can be extended and reused is a key
need of the early SPEM adopter community and the process modeling community
in general.
The mechanism introduced by the IBM submission uses the concept of Plugins,
Configuration, Variability and Variability Types to address this need. In
our opinion this is an overly-complicated solution to meet this requirement.
In our submission, we have proposed an alternative way to meet this need by
well known (and forward compatible from SPEM1.x) concepts of packages,
import dependencies and process components. Having established a namespace
view, the process assets of a package can be extended for use in one or more
workflows. Process Components now act as white box and black box process
assets and can be used to configure larger process components or used in
enactable processes.
Another area of difference between the two proposals is the separation of
process element description versus its usage in a workflow. Again, this is a
well known need that we have addressed without introducing additional
concepts such as Method Content or Managed Content, but by applying the
element definition-usage pattern. We also feel that it is incorrect to limit
agile/adhoc process development from accessing the mechanisms for reuse and
extensionality. The compliance levels mandated by IBM submission impose this
restriction.
In summary, our concern is that the over-complex mechanism to achieve
modularity and reuse coupled by the over emphasis on introducing new
terminology for textual description and content management makes the
meta-model hard to understand for the average user and would cause a low
uptake and casual adoption of the exemplary meta-model. Moreover, by
over-emphasizing content management, the meta-model does not address the key
areas of process enactment and quality frameworks/metrics that are
increasingly demanded by process modeling community.
Thanks
Kamal
Kamal Ahluwalia
Osellus Inc
www.osellus.com
<user@domain.com> wrote in message news:450FC64C.5020301@domain.com...
> Hi Kamal,
>
> I saw that you didn't like the concept of method plugin. Could you
> elaborate on why?
>
> It seems as a nice high level concept for method authors so one can
> partition the methods in understandable pieces, so Im curious about the
> counter-arguments.
>
> thanks
> /anders
>
>
>
> Kamal Ahluwalia wrote:
>> Anders, Sophi
>>
>>
>>
>> Also for you information, here is the link to the discussions:
>> http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/epf-dev/msg00824.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the link to the second SPEM 2.0 submission:
>> http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2006-09-01
>>
>> In our view it offers a number of advantages for being adopted as the EPF
>> meta-model of choice.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Kamal
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Kamal Ahluwalia
>>
>> Osellus Inc.
>>
>> www.osellus.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Peter Haumer" <phaumer@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
>> news:eech0e$rvd$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>>> There is already a discussion thread on SPEM in this forum. See there
>>> for more details and opinions. Also some of the meeting minutes in the
>>> EPF site discuss the topic. The short of it is that EPF would like to
>>> align with SPEM2, but decides on it once it is accepted and the EPF
>>> committers see clear technical benefits of adopting it.
>>>
>>> The status is that key EPF members and together with other OMG members
>>> submitted another proposal to the OMG on Sept. 5th, which you can
>>> download from here: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2006-08-01
>>>
>>> It incorporates feedback from Borland which now supports this submission
>>> team. Microsoft is not an OMG member.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>> Peter Haumer.
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________ __
>>>
>>> PETER HAUMER
>>> IBM | Eclipse Process Framework Committer
>>> ____________________________________________________________ __
>>> <user@domain.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ee89fu$r73$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know the SPEM work progresses? I just noticed that now the
>>>> work now has two similar sumbmissions, One from IBM and one from SUN,
>>>> MS, Borland etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>> /anders
>>>
>>
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Dec 12 17:41:28 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03984 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
