Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: AW: [jwt-dev] Re: STP IM and JWT metamodel


See the comment inline about the example.
Marc Dutoo ha scritto:

Andrea, I mostly agree ^^ Actually, none of my pieces of advice require to change or enhance the STP-IM - as you say, it is fine and the most useful because of its genericity. By the way we discussed with Florian that JWT would need the same kind of generic, annotation-driven extensibility.

Adrian, you pretty much summed my thoughts up : "I think that with proper architecture of the transformers (generators) we can make this separation clear and we can also encourage reuse."

Fabrice, glad I was in line, I also think we have now to dirty our hands to see how the "manage, share and reuse" part might be usefully done.

Andrea, about your example : what I'm saying is, were I to develop a transformation from a STP-IM Service to an XSL SE JBI ServiceUnit, and another one from a STP-IM Service to a Script SE JBI ServiceUnit, I'd for example use JET and would share the generic transformation parts ex. generation of the Provide elements. That might be also useful for other STP-IM to JBI transformation developers who chose to use the JET technology, and that will avoid a throng of copy-pasted JET templates parts that does the same thing. Note that generic STP-IM property translation (i.e. translating all of them along some naming guidelines, regardless whether they are required by the target format or not) should also help avoiding too many specific transformation parts, at least in the way <language> to STP-IM or JWT.
Just to explain:

Suppose we've a very simple process StartStep--->TaskStep--->EndStep, and as your example TaskStep is a Transformation that could be implemented as for example with XSLT Transformation, or with a Groovy Script transformation ok???

What you've actually have in the Intermediate Model, is a process like:

1) First Use Case ( Use XSLT SE )
StartStep ( where Service: StartService, ServiceBinding HTTPBindingComponent ) TaskStep( where Service: TransformationService, ServiceBinding XSLT Service Engine )
EndStep ( where Service: EndService, ServiceBinding ConsoleService )

2) Second Use Case ( Use Groovy SE )
StartStep ( where Service: StartService, ServiceBinding HTTPBindingComponent ) TaskStep( where Service: TransformationService, ServiceBinding Groovy Service Engine )
EndStrp ( where Service: EndService, ServiceBinding ConsoleService )

What to notice is that in both use case the Service is the same, what's really changing is the ServiceBinding, that in JBI code generator will drive the
code generator part ).

What i think it's that is very difficult to share, the same JET file beacuse the configuration section need to be produced are quite different that's all
Hope now, is more clear.


As you say, there's however little to be shared in other cases, like between transformations targeting JBI and BPEL.


Fabrice Dewasmes wrote:

Hi adrian,
the goals are a bit more clear for me. I agree with you, Adrian, when you say that it will be a bit more clear once things will be started. regards, Fabrice

On 1/8/08, *Adrian Mos* <adrian.mos@xxxxxxxx <mailto:adrian.mos@xxxxxxxx>> wrote:

    Hi guys,

So now I understand what Fabrice meant by implementation-specific
    and platform-independent. However, given the purpose and scope of
    the STP-IM, I fully agree with Andrea that we should leave
    properties as generic as possible and put the semantics into the
    transformation logic. I understand that this may seem like some
    things are mixed up a bit, in that there is no obvious separation
    between different standards and different implementations when
    looking at a model instance. However, I think that with proper
    architecture of the transformers (generators) we can make this
    separation clear and we can also encourage reuse.

I must emphasise again that the STP-IM aims to unify different SOA
    editors and platforms in STP with a very pragmatic approach, and
    not define a conceptual meta-model for all things SOA. Another
    important factor for STP-IM is also simplicity in order to
    guarantee adoption. In a way this probably differs from the
    approach taken in JWT which aims to provide a coherent and
    conceptual superset for all things "process in the SOA world" if
    you don't mind this gross simplification :) This difference
    between the two actually highlights the interest in bridging them
    together :)

I think that once we start working on the transformations between
    JWT and STP-IM, we'll hopefully see things a bit more clear and we
    can better realise what lacks in the models.


    On Jan 8, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Fabrice Dewasmes wrote:

Marc, I must admit you have perfectly expressed my thoughts about
    all this. My main concern is really to get things clearly
    separated between a common independant representation and
    implementation specific details. We should be able to go back and
    forth between these two representation *if possible* (as I know
    it is sometimes not achievable or even not recommandable).
         I understand the point of view of Andrea and undestand the
    difficulty he tries to address. But my feeling is that things are
    a little bit mixed together. I have to get deeper in this to
    clear my mind about this.

         On 1/8/08, *Andrea Zoppello* <andrea.zoppello@xxxxxx
    <mailto:andrea.zoppello@xxxxxx>> wrote:

        Hi All,

        See comments inline
        Marc Dutoo ha scritto:
Hi Adrian, Fabrice

I think by "platform specific" Fabrice means "implementation
in contrast to "standard". In the case of a Bonita XPDL
        file, it would
be hooks ; in case of a JBI component's jbi.xml, it would be the
extended information that is specific to this particular
        component (or
underlaying ESB implementation). And his mean to achieve
        this would be
"marks", i.e. annotations I guess.

I actually didn't stress enough the difference between
standard(format)-specific and implementation(runtime)-specific
properties and transformation parts, because I was focusing
        on the
metamodel problematic of JWT and STP-IM. Here are my
        thoughts about
it, they extend the "Architecture side / templating and
        reuse" part of
my previous email.

        I really think that in the IM we should keep properties
        generic, so to
        avoid discussion on which are "standard" and which
        are  "implementation"
        specific properties.

        I think we should not make the error trying to define another
"common-model", in my opinion the IM is useful beacuse it's very
        generic, and specific details are
        not there, but in the "code generators" or "specific editors".

        I think that Intermediate Model, "must ensure" to "transport
        from "editors" to other "editors or code generator".
        The information of  which properties are implementation
        specific "must
        be" in my opinion in the code generation part, and each code
        part must use additional configuration ( xml, properties file
        or other
        specific editor to add specific properties ) to generate what a
        particular technology need.

        The code generator could simply ignore the step properties
        that are not
        interesting for a particular runtime.

        For example in JBI a very important concept is the service
        unit concept,
but there's no property in the steps saying this step belong to a
        service unit, instead the code generator use a specif
        section that map a ( Service/ServiceBinding couple ) to
        service unit and
        use this information for JBI, but this does not affect the IM.

        About the transformation in my opinion is very difficult to
        share a
        "common part" infact the types of "deployable artifact you
        must produce
        are very different according to the runtime.

        For Example : For JBI i must create a zip file with a
        strcuture and a configuration file foe each service unit,
        instead for
        bpel i need to get .bpel file
        and so on.

        Takink this two eaxmples, it seem very complicated to me to
        find a
        shared code generation part??

        Do you agree??

This would be very useful, in that
  * often implementations have bonus features or even
features (ex. Bonita XPDL's hooks) whose declaration stray
        from the
standard, and that would require specific support in the
transformations and even the common metamodel
  * it would ease the development of transformations
        targeting the
same format but a different runtime : once one has been
        done, at worst
copy & paste it, remove the implementation-specific
        properties and
transformation parts, then add the additional right ones.
  * it would still provide (by only applying standard-level
and transformation parts) a transformation whose output is fully
standard-compliant (for whatever need, ex. opening in
        editors that
require standard compliance, easing migration etc.)

How to do it :
This is easier if there is a strong line between
  * standard(format)-specific and
properties ; ex. if those two kind of properties have different
prefixes, if they are documented in two different
        subsections. This is
still methodology - unless we add a (non-strict) validation
  * and transformation parts, ex. if those two kind of
parts are declared in different files or classes (XSL, JET,
if they share files or classes for the standard-level part.
        This is
rather architecture. Here we should promote their sharing,
        but I'm not
sure what would be best : different subprojects or merely a
transformation architecture (ex. if in XSL, at least two
        different XSL
files "jwt2<language>.xsl" and "jwt2<language>-<runtime
NB. It would obviously be very nice to be able to share
        properties and
tranformation parts between transformations targeting the
        same format
(but not the same runtime), but this is not guaranteed out
        of the box
and may require some refactoring work in both.

My 2 cents... I admit I'll have to do one first to have a
        clearer view
of what can be done and what is useful (validation, 2 level
transformation architecture etc.).

Your thoughts ?

Marc Dutoo
Open Wide

Adrian Mos wrote:

Hi Fabrice,

Thanks for your interest in the work around STP-IM. I will
        let Andrea
respond about the monitoring part of Spagic. Regarding your
on STP-IM, could you elaborate a bit with maybe an example
        what you
mean here by platform specific and platform independent
        model? I
understand the terminology as defined in MDA but I'd like
        to better
grasp your meaning of these terms in the context of the
        STP-IM, which
is itself a platform independent metamodel. If by "platform
you mean the content of the properties containing data
        about things
such as JBI and BPEL, do you mean to make a stronger
        separation of
such properties from the rest of the model? If this is what
        you mean,
could you perhaps make a suggestion of how you'd see this


On Jan 4, 2008, at 11:14 AM, Fabrice Dewasmes wrote:

Hi all,

I've had the opportunity to assist to a presentation of
        Spagic and I
must admit I was very interested by what it covers. I
        think that it
could be the missing link between everything when you want
        to have
in a top-down SOA approach and already have chosen what
        will be your
backend (JBI, Mule, ...). It seems to me that the STP-IM
        is a nice
idea and should be able to support very different use
        cases with
quite some work.

It's great news that both projects are OK to collaborate.
        The switch
from STP-IM to JWT meta-model and vice versa should be
for a first step. But for me both projects should work
        more closely.
What I find interesting for spagic could be the WAM part
        of JWT. As
a matter of fact, Spagic already supports some kind of
and monitoring but most of it is done through their web
Could be interesting to be able to :
* deploy and debug step by step the processes
* do the monitoring using a tool like Eclipse. And for
        this part, it
may be interesting to have the WAM part usable as a RCP

For STP-IM, I haven't looked at how the model is done but
        don't you
think it could be interesting to have the platform
        specific parts of
the model represented as marks so that those platform
things end up in something like an independant layer that
        could be
applied or not on the Platform independant model ?

On Jan 3, 2008 7:15 PM, Marc Dutoo <
        marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto: marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx
        <mailto:marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:

    Hi Adrian, Florian

    What a highly interesting succession of emails !
    I'm all the more sorry I couldn't participate to it
        (my holidays
    have hold this against me)
    Anyway, thanks for all who did ;)

    Nevertheless, it clarifies major elements concerning
        STP-IM and its
    interactions with JWT, and I personally very much
        agree with
    that has been said here.

    To sum it up, STP-IM properties play the same role as
    EAnnotations in
    STP BPMN Ed.'s format, i.e. they are to be used to
        provide whatever
    source format specific information might be useful in
        a given
    transformation to another target format. This implies
        they are
    not only to the source or target format, but to the very
    algorithm that is used to transform the one into the
    meaning that
    "at worst" there is a risk of "noodle plate" or

    I believe reducing and managing this problem is of the
    importance in JWT and in STP-IM as well, as Adrian
        proposed in
    his last
    paragraph : "It might be a good idea to properly
        document and
    the  properties that are used in different
        transformations. This
    people can easily use them when adding other
        transformations...". I
    think the answer is a combination of proper guidelines
    naming guidelines) for writing transformations,
        overall methodology
    (project organisation, documentation) and why not a bit of
    to ease and unify a source or target format's most
        recognized and
    "mainstream" properties.

    Here is what I've thought about for JWT in order to
        tackle this
    (it may obviously be useful for STP-IM) :

    on the side of methodology and tests :
      * definition of a set of meaningful (especially
    because of
    the "Business" part in BPM ) samples that cover as
        much BPM
    (XOR, subprocesses...) as possible. Possibly,
        definition of "unit
    samples", but those would be harder to delineate at a
    "unitary" level.
      * one dev subproject per transformation, each with
        its own
    algorithms, and its own version of all default
        samples, and more if
      * a single common jwt-samples subproject, where are
        gathered and
    consistently merged samples from as many as possible
    The idea is to have ex. a single set of BPMN samples,
        a single
set of
    XPDL samples, a single set of JWT samples, a single
        set of BPEL
    and that all transformations (ex. BPMN2JWT, JWT2XPDL,
    including reverse ones) work using the same samples.
      * source or target format specific guidelines, along
        with the
    list of
    "officially recognized" properties for this format.
        Those are
    by transformation implementors who have a working
    doesn't break the existing list and common jwt-samples
        or / and in
    agreement with implementors of already existing
    "officially recognized" properties.
      * common guidelines to transforming to and from the
        JWT model,
    including default advised property / annotation/ ...
    Those are
    enriched by format specific guidelines contributors,
        with the
    assent of
    the others. NB. there is no "officially recognized"
        properties at
    level, since it should be the JWT model.

    Obviously, those last two should be made available as
        public and
    up to
    date as possible (wiki, web site...).

    on the side of architecture :
      * extended JWT model using ex. STP BPMN-like
        EAnnotations or STP
    IM-like properties
      * using ATL for transformations (as for now)

    I'm also thinking of a mechanism of templating
      * to ease their development, including testing against
    "official" samples
      * to ease and unify the use of "officially recognized"
    properties for
    each source and target format (without forbidding to
        add others)

    I really believe the key to long term success is to at
        the same
    keep a strong consistency within a growing set of core
    and ease the development of new transformations as
        well as their
    contributions of new "officially recognized" properties.

    Any feedback welcome !


    Adrian Mos wrote:

    > Hi Florian,
    > You are right in thinking that the intermediate
        model is not just
    > used  for one transformation between BPMN and
        ServiceMix in two
    > It is  a generic means of moving information between
    > and  platforms and currently we have the support for
    > between BPMN, BPEL and ServiceMix.
    > The question you are raising about the generality of
    > definitions is a good one. Basically you are asking
        how if the
    > is generic, can you define things that all downstream
    > can understand. The simple answer is, somebody must
        put them
    > with the shared understanding of the needs of the
        target. The IM
    > ALLOWS the definition of properties with specific
        semantics but
    > not specify the semantics of each set of properties.
        This is the
    > price  for generality, you can't have a model that
        is both
    > and  specific at the same time, and we didn't want
        to provide the
    > union of  all the elements of the supported
        metamodels in the IM.
    > So, somehow, the information about how to map
        concepts from
    > JBI (for example) must be put in the IM. And here is the
choice we
    > made: the concepts that are general enough to be
        useful in a
    > of situations (such as binding, or step, or service)
        are directly
    > represented as elements in the IM. The other concepts,
specific to
    > one  technology or editor, are injected using the
    As you
    > have  rightly noticed, from the BPMN editor we already
populate the
    > properties needed to go from BPMN to JBI or BPEL.
        This is a
    > that allows very good integration of editors using
    > points of BPMN and the IM. Since all the information
        for JBI
can be
    > put in the properties directly from the BPMN editor,
        we are
    able to
    > directly generate JBI. However for BPEL, some
        information must
    > be added using the BPEL editor, which is why this
        editor must be
    > opened and used before being able to completely
        generate the
    > executable BPEL (Andrea correct me if I'm wrong here).
    > So you already see two approaches for putting
    (i.e. non
    > generic enough) information in the IM, needed for
    > transformations. One is by directly defining the
    from the
    > source editor, the other by adding specific
        information in the
    > editor. You can also imagine using an intermediate
        editor for
    > when generating SCA deployable artefacts. You can
        use BPMN to
    > describe  a process, open the SCA editor to add and
        modify SCA
    > specific  information and finally generate the
        running SCA
    > So, while  the IM allows the definition of
        properties that can
    > different  semantics under different contexts, it only
    > some  elements, the ones deemed generic enough (and
        this is of
    > work  in progress as we'll keep improving this
        generic set to
    > correspond to  the needs of STP). Again, the
        semantics of the
    > properties is in the  hands of the transformation
    the ones
    > that specify how to  move to and from the IM and
    > It might be a good idea to properly document and
        classify the
    > properties that are used in different
        transformations. This way,
    > people can easily use them when adding other
    that can
    > result in artefacts generated for editors already having
    > transformations (to or from the IM). This and
        especially the
    > description of the way to add transformations
        to/from the IM are
    > important for the understanding and adoption of the
        IM and
will be
    > done as soon as possible.
    > Hope this clarifies things a bit...
    > Happy New Year! :)
    > Adrian.
    > On Dec 28, 2007, at 10:29 AM, Florian Lautenbacher
    >> Hi Adrian, hi Andrea,
    >> thanks a lot for the clarification about the STP
        IM. Yes, we
    are also
    >> looking forward to work with you. Currently we have
    efforts on
    >> transformations between BPMN and JWT resp. XPDL and
        JWT, but
    >> that is
    >> finished we are looking forward to work on a
        mapping STP IM
    <-> JWT.
    >> One last question: you say that STP IM is a
        transporter model
    (or  Pivot
    >> model as I understand it), so I only need
from say
    >> BPMN to
    >> STP IM and from there to e.g. ServiceMix Assembly.
        But how do
    I know
    >> that my
    >> first transformation from BPMN to STP IM needs to
        write specific
    >> properties
    >> such as "interface", "method call" or "participant"
        that ALL
    >> transformations (to ServiceMix, to BPEL, to XPDL,
        to whatever)
    >> understand
    >> where to look for? Adrian said that STP IM could be
    as an
    >> "intersection" between other relevant standards..
        And that's
    >> good! But
    >> then there needs to be a mechanism or naming
        convention for the
    >> generated
    >> and added properties, every transformation should
        take care
of and
    >> stick to
    >> in order to have several model transformations
        (from BPMN to
    STP IM,
    >> from
    >> JWT to STP IM, from STP IM to BPEL, from STP IM to
        SCA, etc.)
    >> working after
    >> each other, am I right?
    >> Or is the "transporter model" thought of as a model
    used in
    >> *one*
    >> transformation from BPMN to ServiceMix, but this
    transformation has  two
    >> steps inside!? But what would be the use of such a
    >> model? So I
    >> don't think its like that.
    >> Thanks for this last answer and a happy new year
        2008 to all
    of you!
    >> Best regards,
    >> Florian
    >> -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
    >> Von: jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
    <mailto: jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
        <mailto:jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>> [mailto: jwt-dev-
    <mailto: jwt-dev- <mailto:jwt-dev->>
    >> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
        <mailto: bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>>] Im
    >> Auftrag von Adrian Mos
    >> Gesendet: Samstag, 22. Dezember 2007 12:53
    >> An: Florian Lautenbacher; Andrea Zoppello
    >> Cc: Oisin Hurley; Java Workflow Toolbox; Adrian Skehill
    >> Betreff: [jwt-dev] Re: STP IM and JWT metamodel
    >> Hi Florian,
    >> Andrea gave you the detailed answers for your
        questions, so I
    >> want to
    >> say that if you're looking for help with
        transformations you can
    >> definitely
    >> count on us. So if you have any questions about
    >> elements from
    >> JWT to STP-IM or the other way around, feel free to
        fire them
    up on
    >> the STP
    >> mailing list, you'll get an answer quickly.
    >> Also, to follow up on what Andrea said and what I
    previously,  the
    >> STP-IM is a generic "transporter" model, intended
        to bridge the
    >> variety of
    >> SOA editors in STP. So, the semantics of properties
        to different
    >> elements
    >> can differ based on the transformation that is
        going to use
    >> The idea
    >> is that we do not try to offer all the semantics in
        the IM,
    >> just the
    >> means to attach it, so that we can keep a high level of
    >> while
    >> still preserving the most important SOA concepts as
    >> Looking forward to working with you guys, Best
        wishes, Adrian.
    >> On Dec 21, 2007, at 11:36 AM, Andrea Zoppello wrote:
    >>> Hi,
    >>> See the comments inline.
    >>> Florian Lautenbacher ha scritto:
    >>>> Hi Adrian, hi Andrea,
    >>>> thanks for your helpful clarification about the
        metamodel of
    STP IM.
    >>>> I now had a closer look at the metamodel in your
        SVN and it
    is (in  my
    >>>> opinion)
    >>>> much better designed than the one that is shown
        on your web
    >>>> In fact
    >>>> the core concepts are very similar to the core
        metamodel of
    >>>> (which can be found on [1]). In STP IM you got a
        Process which
    >>>> contains * Steps and * Transitions. Each step has
        a name, a
    >>>> description, a number of sourceTransitions and
    targetTransitions as
    >>>> well as several observableAttributes. You also got
    >>>> with subclasses like SplitControl or JoinControl.
        There can
    be  normal
    >>>> Transitions or TransitionsUnderCondition. And
    everything  is
    >>>> a configurable
    >>>> element.
    >>>> Now looking at the JWT metamodel it is very much
        alike: here
    >>>> everything is a ModelElement. There are
        ActivityNodes which
    >>>> connected via ActivityEdges (using source,
        target, in and
    out with
    >>>> same cardinality as sourceTransitions,
    etc. in STP
    >>>> IM). There can be several types of ActivityNodes:
        one would
    be an
    >>>> Action (probably a Step in
    >>>> IM) or it
    >>>> could be a ControlNode such as a ForkNode or a
        JoinNode. An
    >>>> ActivityEdge might have a Guard (making it a
    >>>> "TransitionUnderCondition") whereas the Guard is
in a
    >>>> GuardSpecification (with only a proprietary
        notation allowed).
    >>>> Regarding your description of Properties and
    ObservableAttributes I
    >>>> guess that data that is necessary for execution
        (which might
    >>>> been added to BPMN and shall be transformed into
        BPEL e.g.)
    is added
    >>>> as a property to the relevant step, am I right?
    >>> Yes.
    >>> For example for a Step that is configured
        with  Service
    >>> ServiceBinding [HTTP-InputBindingComponent] the
    will be
    >>> driven by the HTTP-InputBindingComponet, So the
        step will have
    >>> properties like:
    >>> URL:
    >>> isSoap:
    >>> and so on.
    >>> Quite different is the concept of relevant data:
    >>> Relevant data are extracted when the process is
    >>> expression on messages ( exchanged by endpoint in
        the case of
    Jbi )  or
    >>> variable in the case of ( BPEL).
    >>> An example of relevant data is customerID
        extracted by /RECORD/
    >>> @customerId
    >>> Thanks for clarification about the owner
        attribute. Yes, I
    was more
    >>> thinking
    >>>> about a participant or role than about an owner.
        Is this
    data ( e.g.
    >>>> which is
    >>>> available in a swimlane or pool in BPMN) then
        added as a
    >>>> right now to each Step?
    >>> As i say in previous post we'e not yet provided in
        the stp
    >>> intermediate model the concept of participiant role.
    >>> BTW i think that we could support this in BPMN
        editor in two
    >>> 1) Using the lane ( ant this will add some additional
    property on the
    >>> step, or better it will configure a particular
    >>>  RolebAssignedStep, HumanTaskStep )
    >>> 2) Get a view with a participiant list that we
        could drag
    anbd drop  on
    >>> the activities
    >>> We cannot use the BPMN pool concept beacuse a pool
        in the im
    is  mapped
    >>> in to a process.
    >>>> I agree with Adrian and Marc that a first step
        would be
    having a
    >>>> transformation from JWT to STP IM (and the other
        way round).
    >>>> However, since
    >>>> the metamodels are quite similar, this should not
        be so
    hard. Here  at
    >>>> JWT we need to discuss who will be responsible
        for this
    task. Maybe
    >>>> somebody of STP might be able to assist us here!?
    >>> You're welcome. Ask what you want???
    >>>> I am still wondering how you are planning to
        include the
    >>>> from one metamodel in a way that it is clear in a
    >>>> step where it should go. So, if I specify the
        owner of a
    step in a
    >>>> pool or lane in BPMN, how is this information
        kept in STP IM
    so I  can
    >>>> work with that when generating e..g. BPEL or
        XPDL-code? I
    guess you
    >>>> need some predefined values as properties that
        both model
    >>>> transformations use!? Or will there be a query
    (such as RQL
    >>>> or SPARQL) where you can find the "semantics" of
        the property?
    >>>> Best regards and looking forward to some more
    >>>> Florian
    >>> Intermediate Model is a very generic model so you
        could have
    >>> situations where some properties ( for example of
        the step )
    will be
    >>> important by  code generator A and others will
        be  need  by
    >>> generator B.
    >>> The concept is that IM bring you the information
        in a very
    >>> way, than  is responsibility of specific code
        generator to
    >>> that information in something executable.
    >>> To bring you an example, now i'm working in generating
    >>> service assembly applications from intermediate
        model, and
    it's my
    >>> codegenerator plugins that knows ( for example how to
    organize  service
    >>> units, how to make cfg files and so on .... ).
    >>> I don't know if it's clear, if you've some doubt
write me.
    >>> Regards
    >>> Andrea
    >>>> [1]
    >>>> <>

< <>>
    >>>> -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
    >>>> Von: Andrea Zoppello [mailto:
        andrea.zoppello@xxxxxx <mailto:andrea.zoppello@xxxxxx>
        <mailto:andrea.zoppello@xxxxxx>>] Gesendet:
    >>>> Montag, 17. Dezember 2007 10:15
    >>>> An: Florian Lautenbacher
    >>>> Cc: Adrian Skehill; Adrian Mos
    >>>> Betreff: Re: Current state of STP IM?
    >>>> Hi,
    >>>> Sorry for the late response but i'm just come
        back from
    >>>> See comments inline
    >>>> Adrian Skehill ha scritto:
    >>>>> 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?
    >>>> I think version on the wiki is not updated. The
        version that
    >>>> going to commit will be the really the first version.
    >>>>>> 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
    >>>>>> of 1 at each edge)?
    >>>> In the version that we're going to commit a
        process will
    have a set
    >>>> of steps and a set of transitions. A transition
        wil have a
    >>>> step and a target step then in the  A step there
        will be
     two  inverse
    >>>> relations a relation called sourceTransitions 1.*
        ( all
    >>>> for which the step is a source step ) and a
        realtion called
    >>>> targetTransition ( all transition for whcih the
        step is
target )
    >>>>>> 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.)?
    >>>> The transition under condition will have a
        "Condition" (
    >>>> abstract entity ) where a condition could be an
    >>>> ( a condition expressed in some language Xpath,
        groovy, or a
    >>>> condition on header properties "PropertyCondition".
    >>>>>> Do only Transitions have ObservableAttributes?
        How about
    >>>>>> that are specified at a step?
    >>>> In the actual version of the Intermediate Model we've
    introduced the
    >>>> relation between Observable Attribute and Step (
        1..*  each
    >>>> could have one or more observable attribute ).
    >>>> By the way what's important is to clarify the
    >>>> "ObservableAttribute" and "Property" of a Step.
    >>>> Properties are information needed to configure
        the step in a
    >>>> particular runtime,and the properties set depends by
    >>>> Observable attribute are data that will be
        extracted when
    the  process
    >>>> will be executed to be visualuzed and monitored, by
    monitoring  tools.
    >>>>>> Does a process or a step has no owner, but only
        a service?
    >>>> A process is a subclass  of service so process
        could have
    >>>> What's important is to make distinct the concept
        of  "Owner"
    from  the
    >>>> concept of  "Participiant/Actor/Role" as we mean
        when we
    talk about
    >>>> workflow and in general process that require
        "human task".
    >>>> At the moment we've not in the model the concept of
    >>>> Actor/Role"
    >>>> for the support of worflow concept, but in the
        future we're
    going to
    >>>> introduce something about.
    >>>> Basically ( it's just an idea that we need to
        discuss with
    >>>> members
    >>>> ) we'll introduce the concept of role, and a
        subclass of
    Step entity
    >>>> ( let me say RoleAssignedStep or  HumanTaskStep )
        where we
    model the
    >>>> relation beteween a step and a role.
    >>>> For "Owner" instead we mean the provider of a
        service (
    process ) as
    >>>> it is in service registry ( UDDI ) world.
    >>>> But this part is not complete yet.
    >>>>>> Looking forward to your answers,
    >>>> Feel free to contact me if you need other
    >>>>>> Florian Lautenbacher
    >>>>>> -JWT project lead-
    >>>>>> [1]
    >>>>> Hi Florian,
    >>>> Hi
    >>>> Andrea Zoppello
    >>> --
    >>> *Andrea Zoppello*
    >>> ___________________________________________
    >>> < <> < <>>>
    >>> 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
    >>> * <> < <>> <> < <>>*
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> jwt-dev mailing list
    >> jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
        <mailto: jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
    > _______________________________________________
    > jwt-dev mailing list
    > jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
        <mailto:jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>

    jwt-dev mailing list

jwt-dev mailing list
jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:
        jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>>


jwt-dev mailing list
jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>


        *Andrea Zoppello*
        < <>>

        Spagic 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

* <> <>*

        jwt-dev mailing list
        jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

    jwt-dev mailing list
    jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

    jwt-dev mailing list
    jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>


jwt-dev mailing list

jwt-dev mailing list


*Andrea Zoppello*

Spagic 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

*          *

Back to the top