Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] [modeling-pmc] Notifcation to let QVTO contribute to Juno

Hi Nicolas,

Webmaster had restored my access rights to development server and I published QVTo M4 build. I updated 'm2m-qvtoml.b3aggrcon' with this build for Juno and aggregation build was ok ( 

So QVTo normally joined Juno sim.release train. In nearest days I'm going to take up other formal steps for Juno (


On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Rouquette, Nicolas F (313K) <nicolas.f.rouquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The patch we discussed back in August is still waiting approval from JPL/Caltech lawyers; I've escalated this request recently.

At the OMG, I officially represent NASA's interests in modeling specifications and in that capacity, I strongly support the excellent work Eclipse has done in implementing OMG's key modeling specifications in various Eclipse projects -- EMF core, EMF/XSD, OCL, UML, QVTO.

Also at the OMG, I have pioneered using QVTO for producing the official, published machine-readable files for several specifications:
SysML 1.3 -- not yet publicly available

At JPL, we've developed a rigorous integration between MOF2 / OWL2 using QVTO, SPARQL and OWL2 reasoners.

Whether it is for JPL or for NASA, it is clear to me that QVTO is a very important specification and the Eclipse QVTO is essential in making this specification practically useful. 

I hope this suffices to clearly indicate that there is a strong interest in QVTo participating in the Juno release train.

On the commercial side, I'm aware of two vendors that use Eclipse QVTO in their products:

- IBM's Rational Software Architect 8 is based on Eclipse Helios and specifically refers to Eclipse QVTO as a technology option for model transformation
- NoMagic developed a JSR-233 script engine wrapper to use Eclipse QVTO in their flagship modeling tool, MagicDraw 17.0

As I mentioned before, I believe it would be useful to contact these vendors to promote the fact that they use Eclipse QVTO in their products and perhaps create additional revenue streams to support the ongoing development/improvement of Eclipse QVTO.

At least, I've personally committed $1,000 specifically to support Eclipse QVTO; this means you and whoever else works as an unpaid committer on Eclipse QVTO.

- Nicolas.

On Dec 19, 2011, at 1:06 AM, Sergey Boyko wrote:

Hi Philipp,

Problem with QVTo participation on Juno release train comes from the fact that I didn't get clear response whether somebody requires that participation.

When we discussed with Nicolas (in August) patch from NASA we decided that QVTo release for Indigo is the right target to merge the patch to (I prepared maintenance branch for that).

I also expect some input from re-istablished GMF Tooling project but there was nothing.

Without clear interest of QVTo participating in Juno realease train I didn't see the need to perform all the administrative steps to keep project on train.

  Sergey Boyko


On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Philipp W. Kutter | Montages AG <kutter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I wish you all Happy Holidays!

It is a great feeling that the OMG standards based projects are going strong and will all be on the Juno releasse train!

If there is a doubt in the future that any of these projects will not be on the release train, simply because nobody is there to fulfill the formalities of the project or the details of the newest build project, we can always help. As Miles mentions, this may need to add some people of other modeling projects to the committer teams.

Could the modeling PMC send out a mail and ask the modeling teams
a) who sees a risk they will not be on the release train, simply because of lack to fulfill the formalities and the build project
b) who would volunteer to help out for other projects.

As well, it might be a good policy, to have a backup plan, if a component lead is either not available, or ill, or otherwise gone in the very moment he needs to promote the project. Immagine an important project, with lots of dependencies does not release, simply because the component lead is in-available. The costs can be huge.

Thanks for the great work of the Eclipse Foundation,

On 17.12.2011 01:44, Ed Willink wrote:
Hi Miles

There is no need to panic. In view of some delicacies, considerable correspondence has happened off-list.

Nicolas Rouquette has now resolved both the problem and the delicacies by his open email to these lists that you must have missed.

Thanks to Nicolas' generosity, QVTo will be available in Juno supported by the existing QVTo team.

The only process exception that may be needed is tolerance of a one or two day tardiness in setting the contribution flag.

I'm sure we all wish to thank Nicolas for being so helpful to Eclipse. Thank you Nicolas.


       Ed Willink

On 16/12/2011 23:57, Miles Parker wrote:

You should identify QVTO leadership, which means M2M nee MMT, so that they can make the change in their portal. (This of course would have to be in the middle of a project renaming!) That would require all of MMT to join train, I don't know if it's possible to do this more fine-grained than that. PMC can flip the bit for MMT, but I don't think we should do that unless/until we have support from project leadership or at least active committers if they exist. Comments?

William, I'm cc'ing you because I note that you have contact with Frédéric Jouault who is project lead..? Perhaps you could pass on his email to Phillip.

FWLIW, I'll support any process exception if needed/possible once that is sorted out. Phillip, thanks for taking the initiative on this. Why don't you report back to PMC list as you make progress?



On Dec 16, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Philipp W. Kutter | Montages AG wrote:

Dear PMC.

I would like to notify that QVTO should flip the bit for Juno. I hope
this has already been done by the QVTO team itself.

In the unexpected case, that the current QVTO team will not have time to
trigger the newest ways of building the QVTO, I can guarantee
development time from the GMF Tolling component lead Michael Golubev,
who knows well the newest ways of building.

As well, there is a cummulative patch from Nicolas Rouquette, which we
would love to integrate in the new build, if the QVTO team has not yet done.

The GMF Tooling project has a strong dependency on QVTO and would fail
in their efforts to do their releases in the future, if QVTO build fails.

As well, the sponsor of the 3 FTE working on GMF tooling requests that
GMF Tooling as well as the project it depends on are remaining in Juno,
so we have a multiyear 3 FTE sponsorship at risk, if this does not happen.

We want to do all to support the current team to do the Juno builds.
There is a budget from Nicolas Rouquette and us, which would offer $
2000 to who ever in the QVTO team wants to do this. And we support with
development time from the 3 FTE working on GMF Tooling, if needed.

Please forward this message as well to the QVTO team, whom I do not know
personally. Please assure them of our full support. I did not find a mailing list for them.

And, as today is the deadline, please accept this notification, even if
formally it comes from the wrong side.


modeling-pmc mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2108/4684 - Release Date: 12/16/11

modeling-pmc mailing list

Back to the top