Home » Archived » Service Oriented Architecture Tools Platform (STP) » Current state of STP IM?
| Current state of STP IM? [message #374373] |
Wed, 12 December 2007 10:30  |
 Florian Lautenbacher
Messages: 61
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hi,
I am wondering what the current state of the STP Intermediate model is?
Is the version on the Wiki [1] up to date? If so, I am curious why a
step is part of a process, but the transition is not? And, on the other
hand, why there is only one edge between a step and a transition with
cardinality *. In many other standards (like UML activity diagrams)
there are always two edges between a node (=ActivityNode in UML) and a
transition (=ActivityEdge in UML) specifying that a transition has
exactly two ends (cardinality of 1 at each edge)?
How are the conditions at TransitionUnderCondition specified? Are these
boolean conditions connected with AND, OR, XOR and NOT? Or is this open
to each implementation (BPMN, SCA, JBI, etc.)?
Do only Transitions have ObservableAttributes? How about attributes that
are specified at a step?
Does a process or a step has no owner, but only a service?
Looking forward to your answers,
Florian Lautenbacher
-JWT project lead-
[1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/STP_Internal_Model_Discussion
|
|
|
| Re: Current state of STP IM? [message #374384 is a reply to message #374373] |
Thu, 13 December 2007 11:25  |
Adrian Skehill
Messages: 36
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Florian Lautenbacher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering what the current state of the STP Intermediate model is?
> Is the version on the Wiki [1] up to date? If so, I am curious why a
> step is part of a process, but the transition is not? And, on the other
> hand, why there is only one edge between a step and a transition with
> cardinality *. In many other standards (like UML activity diagrams)
> there are always two edges between a node (=ActivityNode in UML) and a
> transition (=ActivityEdge in UML) specifying that a transition has
> exactly two ends (cardinality of 1 at each edge)?
> How are the conditions at TransitionUnderCondition specified? Are these
> boolean conditions connected with AND, OR, XOR and NOT? Or is this open
> to each implementation (BPMN, SCA, JBI, etc.)?
> Do only Transitions have ObservableAttributes? How about attributes that
> are specified at a step?
> Does a process or a step has no owner, but only a service?
>
> Looking forward to your answers,
>
> Florian Lautenbacher
> -JWT project lead-
>
>
> [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/STP_Internal_Model_Discussion
Hi Florian,
While I can't comment on your specific questions on the model, we do have it
checked into subversion if you are interested in looking at the latest
version. It's in [1] or your can use http as well.
Adrian & Andrea are at Javaopolis this week, but they should be able to get
back to you to cover your more detailed question.
Adrian.
[1] svn+ssh://dev.eclipse.org/svnroot/stp/trunk/org.eclipse.stp. model
|
|
|
| Re: Current state of STP IM? [message #605718 is a reply to message #374373] |
Thu, 13 December 2007 11:25 |
Adrian Skehill
Messages: 36
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Florian Lautenbacher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering what the current state of the STP Intermediate model is?
> Is the version on the Wiki [1] up to date? If so, I am curious why a
> step is part of a process, but the transition is not? And, on the other
> hand, why there is only one edge between a step and a transition with
> cardinality *. In many other standards (like UML activity diagrams)
> there are always two edges between a node (=ActivityNode in UML) and a
> transition (=ActivityEdge in UML) specifying that a transition has
> exactly two ends (cardinality of 1 at each edge)?
> How are the conditions at TransitionUnderCondition specified? Are these
> boolean conditions connected with AND, OR, XOR and NOT? Or is this open
> to each implementation (BPMN, SCA, JBI, etc.)?
> Do only Transitions have ObservableAttributes? How about attributes that
> are specified at a step?
> Does a process or a step has no owner, but only a service?
>
> Looking forward to your answers,
>
> Florian Lautenbacher
> -JWT project lead-
>
>
> [1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/STP_Internal_Model_Discussion
Hi Florian,
While I can't comment on your specific questions on the model, we do have it
checked into subversion if you are interested in looking at the latest
version. It's in [1] or your can use http as well.
Adrian & Andrea are at Javaopolis this week, but they should be able to get
back to you to cover your more detailed question.
Adrian.
[1] svn+ssh://dev.eclipse.org/svnroot/stp/trunk/org.eclipse.stp. model
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Apr 20 04:31:28 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02591 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
