|
Hi Adrian, hi all,
on Friday we discussed several topics about the
transformation between JWT and STP-IM. The group of students created a document
where all the conclusions were summarized. Alas, it's written in German.
Nevertheless, here's a link to the document [1], so you can have a look for
yourself and maybe especially focus at the table on the last pages. Here, all
concepts of JWT are summarized and how they will be transformed into STP-IM.
Even without understanding German I think its not that difficult to understand
that.
If you have any questions on that document, please
don't hesitate to ask.
Best regards,
Florian
Hi guys,
I think for now the JWT2STP-IM transformation is probably better off in the
JWT SVN as you guys have better control in there since you are not committers on
the STP project (yet :) ). The STP-IM transformations in the STP SVN would
typically cover editors / platforms directly covered by STP so it might be a bit
of a stretch to put the JWT work in there now, although this is clearly
something of interest for the STP people and I think in the future we need to
find a good way to advertise this functionality and make
it visible for the STP and JWT communities.
Looking forward to seeing your conclusions upon analysing which concepts
should be transformed from JWT to STP-IM!
Best regards,
Adrian.
On May 14, 2008, at 11:19 AM, Florian Lautenbacher wrote:
Hi Juan,
thanks for your Wiki-page. I'm not sure whether the
JWT2STP-IM transformations would fit there as well or whether they would
better be covered in the JWT-CVS.
My students have nearly finished their informal
description which concepts of JWT shall be transformed in which concepts of
STP-IM. They will present their ideas on Friday and next week they'll start
with the actual implementation. We'll send a
link to the document describing the ideas of the transformation in the next
days.
I guess especially on topics of the implementation using
ATL both of us can benefit from working together and sharing
ideas.
Best regards,
Florian
Hello
Florian, all,
Thanks
a lot for your welcome! Im excited for the chance to work with you all and of
course, Id be happy to collaborate with your group at the
University!
To
begin, I will be studying the existing BPMN to STP-IM which has been
implemented using the EMF generated Java APIs of both metamodels, in order to
understand it better and then implement the STP-IM to SCA transformation with
Adrian. The short term goal is to enable to user to model a business process
and obtain the architecture model of a composite application supporting this
process. I will try to document these conceptual mappings in the wiki as much
as I can and let you know ;)
About
the transformation mechanism, the EMF generated APIs is the most flexible and
straightforward option for us developers, however itd be nice to have the
transformation rules separate from other concerns such as reading/persisting
models, accessing annotations etc., and also have them comply with OMGs QVT
standard. As such, using ATL would make a better choice in the long run,
although we have to evaluate how this would work inside STP. The only thing
Im not sure at the moment is about the best way to launch ATL transformations
programmatically, whether invoking Ant scripts or using the ATL APIs. Does
anyone have a final word on this?
Also,
I have created a page describing the current STP-IM plug-in structure as it
stands today in the SVN repository, for all of us to benefit [1]. I hope you
can take a look and provide the necessary edits! Thanks a
lot!
-Juan
Hi
Adrian, hi Andrea,
thanks
for your support in our questions. I can understand that you are only
integrating new concepts into STP-IM in a few months, but this makes it of
course hard for us at the moment to decide which concepts to use for the
transformations. So, we are unsure whether we simply introduce new concepts
for the moment in our copy of the STP-IM (to cover the workflow aspects) and
contribute them within a bug to the development of STP-IM or whether we simply
stay with its current layout (where it is sometimes difficult to identify all
concepts we need). Probably, we will only implement a short subset for the
moment and when the STP-IM has been polished, then we include the remaining
parts.
Thanks
for changing Transition to a Configurable element and also thanks for your
assistance with Conditions, Owner, Service and the
ecore_diagram-file.
And, of
course: hello to Juan Cadavid who will work on transformation starting with
STP-IM and going somewhere else ;-) What exactly is the focus of the first
transformation? BPEL? SCA? BPMN? How are these transformations done? Using
ATL, QVT? Maybe Juan and our group here at the University could benefit by
asking questions concerning the transformations to each
other!?
Till next
Friday all conceptual work will be finished, so we will have decided then
which concepts from JWT will be transformed into what concept in STP-IM
and after that the implementation will start (most probably using ATL). Here
my students will have a look on the already implemented JWT to BPMN
transformations by Stéphane and will implement their transformations in a
similar way.
I will
keep you updated as soon as we got some news.
Best
regards,
Florian
Hi
Guys,
Sorry
for the late reply, I've been away until this
morning.
First
of all it's great to see that you guys are working on this, and it's only
natural that questions arise. As you have guessed it, the IM is not yet
completely polished and it's also trough feedback like this that we can improve it. I also want to take
the opportunity to introduce to you Juan Cadavid (in CC) who will work on
BPMN/BPEL/SCA/etc :) transformations using the STP-IM. He has recently been
awarded an internship scholarship through the Google Summer of Code to work on
this. Juan, perhaps it would be a good idea to subscribe to the jwt mailing
lists so that you can follow this relationship between JWT and STP-IM more
closely.
As
Andrea said, the Owner and Service Classification have been introduced with
the concept of UDDI in mind and I also think it's probably best we don't use
them for workflow modelling, unless of course you have a strong need for them,
in which case we can try and come up with the best solution to
this.
Andrea
has already made the change to make the Transition a configurable element,
please let us know if this helps and what other problems you encounter with
the transformations. It would also be great if you could keep us updated with
the progress of this in general so that we can follow up with suggestions and
so on.
INRIA
Rhone-Alpes
655
avenue de l'Europe - Montbonnot
38
334 Saint Ismier Cedex France
On
May 6, 2008, at 9:13 AM, Andrea Zoppello wrote:
Hi
Florian,
See the comments inline
1) Owner and Service
Classification were not introduced with the concept of workflow in "mind", but
were
introduced to support in future the concept of "service registries
like uddi", so in my opinion it's better you don't use these
two entities
for modeling workflow scenario.
My suggestion is not to use these two
entities for modeling workflow enitities in IM
BTW in the next month,
we're going to exactly introcude workflow concept like role, "Human Based
Step" on IM beacuse we need them
Unfortunately, now i'm quite busy and i've
not so much time to do that.
Basically my idea is to introduce a sub
class of step ( RoleBasedStep ) to model workflow activities
2) If you
take the code from sv you could look at the emf model in graphical
way
looking at the stpmodel.ecore_diagram file
3) If you look at the
diagran you could find that a TransitionUnderCondition is a Transition
with a Condition entity associated where
a condition could be A
PropertyCondition ( subclass of Condition ) or an _expression_ Condition (
subclass of condition ) where you could find
an _expression_ language
attribute.
4) At the moment Transition are not "ConfigurableElement"
but i think i'm going to change this this today so Transition will
be
ConfigurationElement.
Hope this help.
Andrea
Zoppello
Florian Lautenbacher ha scritto:
Hi
Andrea,
thanks
for your fast reply. Since we want to have a mature
transformation,
it
is difficult for us to build on something that might be removed or
might
be
created in the future :-)
So
I guess we will currently focus on Owner and
ServiceClassification
without
considering that those might be subject of change in the future.
You
said
that TransitionUnderCondition is used for a BPMN Exclusive
Gateway?
Where
exactly do you specify the condition then? Is this a property of
the
TransitionUnderCondition
(as a Configurable Element)? Is there a way to
specify
which (_expression_) language this condition is based
on?
Mostly
we are using the .ecore-file from the SVN, but sometimes its
easier
to
view it graphically in the wiki...
Thanks
for your assistance and best regards,
Florian
-----Ursprüngliche
Nachricht-----
Auftrag
von Andrea Zoppello
Gesendet:
05 May 2008 17:06
An:
Marius Brendle
Betreff:
[jwt-dev] Re: STP/IM questions/help
Hi,
1)
Owner and ServiceClassification are really not used at the moment, and
i
think
we're going to think and define well in future when we're going
to
approach
to model workflow scenarios in
IntermediateModel.
My
personal idea is to add a Role entity and to have a subclass of
"Step"
called
"RoleAssignedStep" or something similar that will define that
a
particular
step will be assigned and will be performed by a specific
role
2)
A "TransitionUnderCondition" must be used when the transition
is
conditioned
to some rule to happen ( we use this ) for exampleto model
the
transition
outcoming from a bpmn exclusive gateway.
3)
We choose all the entity to be subclass of configurable element, so
each
element
could have properties.
Maybe
the wiki documentation is a little out of date, btw the version
used
is
the one you could find in the svn repository.
Hope
this helps.
Andrea
Zoppello
Marius
Brendle ha scritto:
Hello
Andrea & Adrian,
we're
working on a project of Florian Lauterbacher at the University in Augsburg
(Germany). Our goal is to do a model transformation of the JWT (AgilPro)
meta-model to the STP Intermediate
Model.
Even
in the recent SVN snapshot, there are several model
elements
(classes)
like Owner, ServiceClassification, TransitionUnderCondition and
ObservableAttrible without any attributes! Could it be possible that the
STP/IM is incomplete until now at this point? Or is this a wanted design
decision by you? Or should we do some decisions by ourselves? Perhaps all
the above mentioned classes are also of the type "ConfigurableElement" (so
addional properties could be added), but this is not the case in the model
or the Wiki at this point!
How
will the "ControlServices" be handled? In the Wiki there is mentioned that
this is not completed till now...
Thank
you for the help in advice!
Kind
regards,
Christian,
Stephan and Marius
|
