Hi Andrea, hi Adrian,
yes, sure, I understand that it's difficult for you to read
text in German. We won't translate the first parts of the report because they
only summarize how the JWT and STP-IM metamodels are designed, but we will try
to translate the last paragraphs which describe the transformation between
both.
We'll let you know as soon as we've got a first
version.
Best regards,
Florian
Hi Florian, all,
Thanks for pointing us to the document, I think the table at the very end
is very useful and we could get some inspiration from it to document all the
transformations to and from the IM. As Andrea hinted though, it's hard for some
of us to fully benefit from this document, are there any plans to make at least
a summary of it available in English?
Thanks!
Adrian.
On May 19, 2008, at 10:21 AM, Juan Cadavid wrote:
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
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!
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! 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!
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
|