Hi Florian,
Thanks a lot! It is always good to practice our German ;) I
think the structure to document the transformations is really great, especially
the part on transformable and non-transformable concepts, where transformation
rules are expressed in natural language. Perhaps we should follow this pattern
to document all transformations from and to STP-IM.
Regards,
-Juan
From:
jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Florian Lautenbacher
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 1:13 PM
To: 'Java Workflow Toolbox'
Cc: '"'Juan José Cadavid Gómez'"'; 'Marius Brendle'
Subject: [jwt-dev] Informal description about JWT 2 STP-IM
transformation
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
[1] http://www.informatik.uni-augsburg.de/lehrstuehle/swt/vs/lehre/SS_08/mdsd_praktikum/zwischenpraesentation/AusarbeitungGruppe5.pdf
Von:
jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag
von Adrian Mos
Gesendet: 17 May 2008 15:50
An: Florian Lautenbacher
Cc: 'Java Workflow Toolbox'; "'Juan José Cadavid Gómez'";
'Marius Brendle'
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [jwt-dev] Re: STP/IM questions/help
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!
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
Von: Juan
José Cadavid Gómez [mailto:juanjosecg@xxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: 11 May 2008
07:16
An: 'Florian
Lautenbacher'; 'Java Workflow Toolbox'; 'Andrea Zoppello'
Cc: 'Marius Brendle';
'Adrian Mos'
Betreff: RE: AW: [jwt-dev]
Re: STP/IM questions/help
Thanks a lot for your welcome! I’m excited for the chance to
work with you all and of course, I’d 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 it’d 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 OMG’s 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 I’m 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!
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.
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:
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,
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Auftrag von Andrea Zoppello
Gesendet: 05 May 2008 17:06
Betreff: [jwt-dev] Re: STP/IM
questions/help
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.
Marius Brendle ha scritto:
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!
Christian, Stephan and Marius
|