Re: [epf-dev] Whitepaper is appearing in concept categories

[Bingxue Xu <bxu@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

This is a legacy issue: in the original
meta-model, Whitepaper is modeled as a subclass of Concept, that is, Whitepaper
extends Concept. That's why Whitepaper is also classified in the concept
category.

You could think some other ways to model
this or use tags or something else to exclude them. 

Thanks very much.
Bing.



From:      
 epf-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxx
To:      
 epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:      
 04/28/2011 12:08 PM
Subject:    
   epf-dev Digest,
Vol 64, Issue 16
Sent by:    
   epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Send epf-dev mailing list submissions to
                
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
                
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
                
epf-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxx

You can reach the person managing the list at
                
epf-dev-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of epf-dev digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Whitepaper is appearing in concept categories (Bruce Macisaac)
   2. OMG, SPEM, SEMAT, and EPF (Bruce Macisaac)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 11:38:08 -0700
From: Bruce Macisaac <bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
                
<epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [epf-dev] Whitepaper is appearing in concept categories
Message-ID:
                
<OFC0D7DDCE.55B0C03B-ON88257880.0065CD29-88257880.00665EC1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I am not able to replicate this issue.
Cristiano - if you export your plug-in and send it to me, I will 
investigate.

Bruce MacIsaac
Manager RMC Method Content
bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx
408-250-3037 (cell)



From:
Cristiano Gavi?o <cvgaviao@xxxxxxxxx>
To:
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
04/21/2011 10:21 AM
Subject:
[epf-dev] Whitepaper is appearing in concept categories
Sent by:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx



Hi,

I'm experimenting some issue with custom categories for concepts and 
whitepapers.

I've create customs categories using as example this from epf pratices:
core.default.nav_view.base

But when I publish any white paper appears in both White Papers and 
Concepts folder.

Is this a know issue ?

cheers

Cristiano
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/epf-dev/attachments/20110428/73ea07a1/attachment.htm>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:07:35 -0600
From: Bruce Macisaac <bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [epf-dev] OMG, SPEM, SEMAT, and EPF
Message-ID:
                
<OF600C1124.247AE421-ON88257880.00649AD4-88257880.0069111C@xxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear EPF community,

The ESSENSE/SEMAT RFP is moving forward in OMG, and if we in EPF want to
influence that standard, we need to provide an official response, 
preferably in the next week.  There will be further opportunities
to 
comment on the RFP, but I would like to provide
an initial response to make it clear that this is important to EPF and
we 
do plan to engage in the discussion.

I have attached the most recent version of this RFP that I have, and will
post any updates as they become available.


I am working on an official response, but I need input from the community.
Specifically - it would help to have a list of who is using EPF content?
Who has extended the tool and content, or built new tools or content based
on EPF or SPEM?
Who would be impacted by a change to the underlying meta-model of EPF?
Please send a note to me at bmacisa@xxxxxxxxxx so that I can compile 
comments.

Since EPF is based on SPEM, another OMG standard, it's in our best 
interest to make sure that any new OMG process standard fits
with SPEM and moves in a direction beneficial to EPF.

If there are changes you would like to see to SPEM, the meta-model on 
which EPF was based (http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/2.0/)
let me know.  Also 
if you have specific comments on the RFP, or have feedback on the comments
I expressed in my initial email on this topic (attached), please let me
know in the next few days preferably.

Thanks to those who responded to my initial email on this topic:
John Allen, Diwant Vaidya, Chris Armstrong, Bob Palank, James F Tremlett.

I will add you to a "EPF/ESSENSE" interest group, and will copy
you on my 
proposed official response to the RFP and solicit your input.
Anyone who wants to be added to this list, please send me a note.

Thanks,

Bruce MacIsaac
bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx
408-250-3037 (cell)




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear EPF community, 

There was a recent submission to OMG to propose a new process standard.
It is not based on SPEM or any of the work we have done in EPF, but rather
is based on the SEMAT kernel work. 
(For those who don't know this, EPF was originally based on SPEM 
http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/2.0/
) 

Some  reasons given for why the proposal ignores SPEM is: 

1. "lack of enactment support" 
If this is a significant concern, then a set of requirements for what 
would be appropriate enactment support should be described in the RFP.
A goal to what people actually do vs. what they are supposed to do isn't
a 
sufficient set of requirements. 
There are some hints in the RFP, but they aren't clear: 
"Methods can be queried to get guidance based on where you are and
where 
you want to go" 
- this seems to be about describing how the processes evolve during 
enactment - this could be a natural extension to SPEM 

2."The notion of composable practices is not explicitly defined as
a core 
concept in the SPEM metamodel" 
This seems to be a gap which could be addressed by a SPEM update.  Note
that both SEMAT and EPF have gone beyond SPEM and 
added support for practices to their method offerings.  They both
use 
similar concepts and provide similar capabilities, but not identical. 
This kind of divergence is exactly the kind of problem that standards 
organizations like OMG strive to avoid, so the time 
is ripe to add practices support to SPEM. 

3. "UML profile ... might be more complex and not as user-friendly
as a 
more domain-specific language" 
There is also a MOF representation of SPEM, but in any case, any approach
for simplifying is welcome, but doing something completely unconnected
doesn't make a lot of sense. 

4. SPEM does not specify a kernel of "essential elements" 
Both SEMAT and EPF define such a kernel, but use different terminology
and 
have made different choices regarding those essential elements. 
Again, this is where standards are valuable - they align the best of 
divergent ideas so that the entire community can benefit. 
The EPF kernel has been defined and publicly available for some time.  
It 
is well supported by both the EPF Composer and Rational Method Composer
tools. 
It is based on an extension to SPEM. 
A natural path forward would be to take the EPF kernel and formalize it
in 
an extension to SPEM, reconciling differences with the SEMAT kernel to
the 
benefit of the entire community.  I propose an extension, because
I think 
SPEM should remain capable of modeling processes that don't use a kernel,
or 
that use alternative kernels. 

If this is a topic that interests you, and you would like to be involved
in this discussion, please drop me a note. 

Bruce MacIsaac
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/epf-dev/attachments/20110428/fc2c4848/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 11-02-01-RFP-AB-update2-final.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 278016 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/epf-dev/attachments/20110428/fc2c4848/attachment.dll>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev


End of epf-dev Digest, Vol 64, Issue 16
***************************************