Home » Archived » EPF » Modeling SPL processes with SPEM 2.0
| Modeling SPL processes with SPEM 2.0 [message #17110] |
Wed, 30 August 2006 12:11  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: orlando.opencanarias.com
Hello everyone!
I'm working on a implementation of SPEM 2.0 metamodel with EMF/Eclipse
platform. I know the EPF project is not specifically about SPEM 2.0;
however, since the latter is highly related to EPF, perhaps someone
could give me some valuable feedback ;-)
I'm highly interested on modeling software product line (SPL) procesess
with SPEM 2.0, that is, the SPL development process (1) and the actual
product development process (2). Workproducts produced in process 1 are
extensively used during process 2. The problem arises when we take into
account that workproducts from process 1 can be tools and guidelines as
weel as ordinary workproducts.
I seems to me that It would be very useful if tools and guidelines could
be the output of activities and/or tasks; thus we could represent in a
single model the whole relationships between SPL development process and
the actual products development processes.
It'd be very helpful any comment to have these procesess (and their
relationships) modeled in SPEM 2.0.
Bests,
Orlando.
|
|
|
| Re: Modeling SPL processes with SPEM 2.0 [message #17283 is a reply to message #17110] |
Fri, 01 September 2006 03:12  |
 Peter Haumer
Messages: 228
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hello Orlando.
Unfortunately, there is still no SPEM 2 metamodel. I am preparing another
OMG submission for Monday right now, which has changes in respect to the
last submission that still incorporates change requests from the submission
partners.
When you perform a task that produces a guideline then this guidelines is by
definition a work product. Hence you would model a work product (or
artifact) called guidance and list that as the output. The guidance that
you create in EPF are the instances of such a work product guidance.
This is a tricky topic referred to as meta-modeling. The UML Infrastructure
document explains this much better than I can, but: SPEM or EPF processes
define a model (also sometimes referred to as M1 objects). In your case you
seem to be creating a process about process modeling itself (which makes it
a bit more complicated to understand). Even so, that process can describe
how you create work products called guidance. The instantiation of your
process (on the M0 level) would produce concrete guidance instances such as
"Run a brainstorming session". These guidance instances can be created and
managed in the EPF tool. It is just a coincident that your work product is
part of the SPEM meta-model, but there is no need for an extra association.
Otherwise, you need to link every other concept of SPEM to task as well,
e.g. for a task that produces a process, a task that produces a work product
definition, etc. These are all plain work products.
--
Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.
____________________________________________________________ __
PETER HAUMER
IBM | Eclipse Process Framework Committer
____________________________________________________________ __
"Orlando" <orlando@opencanarias.com> wrote in message
news:ed3v8s$595$1@utils.eclipse.org...
> Hello everyone!
>
> I'm working on a implementation of SPEM 2.0 metamodel with EMF/Eclipse
> platform. I know the EPF project is not specifically about SPEM 2.0;
> however, since the latter is highly related to EPF, perhaps someone could
> give me some valuable feedback ;-)
>
> I'm highly interested on modeling software product line (SPL) procesess
> with SPEM 2.0, that is, the SPL development process (1) and the actual
> product development process (2). Workproducts produced in process 1 are
> extensively used during process 2. The problem arises when we take into
> account that workproducts from process 1 can be tools and guidelines as
> weel as ordinary workproducts.
>
> I seems to me that It would be very useful if tools and guidelines could
> be the output of activities and/or tasks; thus we could represent in a
> single model the whole relationships between SPL development process and
> the actual products development processes.
>
> It'd be very helpful any comment to have these procesess (and their
> relationships) modeled in SPEM 2.0.
>
> Bests,
>
> Orlando.
|
|
|
| Re: Modeling SPL processes with SPEM 2.0 [message #18614 is a reply to message #17283] |
Mon, 11 September 2006 09:16 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: orlando.opencanarias.com
Thank you very much for your reply Peter.
I think you are right. A Develop Software Product Line process produces
(1) instances (at M0) of the set of core assets (such as guidelines,
tools, tasks and workproducts) of the software product line as well as
(2) the Develop Software Product process definition itself, by which
members of the product line are produced from those core assets. These
two processes (Develop Software Product Line and Develop Software
Product) should not be represented within the same SPEM model as the
second one is extensively the work product of the first one. Do you agree?
Bests regards,
Orlando.
Peter Haumer wrote:
> Hello Orlando.
> Unfortunately, there is still no SPEM 2 metamodel. I am preparing another
> OMG submission for Monday right now, which has changes in respect to the
> last submission that still incorporates change requests from the submission
> partners.
>
> When you perform a task that produces a guideline then this guidelines is by
> definition a work product. Hence you would model a work product (or
> artifact) called guidance and list that as the output. The guidance that
> you create in EPF are the instances of such a work product guidance.
>
> This is a tricky topic referred to as meta-modeling. The UML Infrastructure
> document explains this much better than I can, but: SPEM or EPF processes
> define a model (also sometimes referred to as M1 objects). In your case you
> seem to be creating a process about process modeling itself (which makes it
> a bit more complicated to understand). Even so, that process can describe
> how you create work products called guidance. The instantiation of your
> process (on the M0 level) would produce concrete guidance instances such as
> "Run a brainstorming session". These guidance instances can be created and
> managed in the EPF tool. It is just a coincident that your work product is
> part of the SPEM meta-model, but there is no need for an extra association.
> Otherwise, you need to link every other concept of SPEM to task as well,
> e.g. for a task that produces a process, a task that produces a work product
> definition, etc. These are all plain work products.
|
|
|
| Re: Modeling SPL processes with SPEM 2.0 [message #18629 is a reply to message #18614] |
Tue, 12 September 2006 18:13 |
Peter Haumer
Messages: 228
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
I think they can be represented in the same model as long it is clear when
you are on which level. But probably you are right. It would be best to
manage them as separate Method Plug-ins giving them a physical separation as
well making it easy to create configurations to exclude one from the other.
Rational used to publish a Process Engineer Process (PEP) for the RPW
environment, which was a process for process engineering. This one, too,
was managed as its own plug-in. (Btw. we started something similar in EPF,
lead by Jim Ruehlin and looking for contributors.)
--
Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.
____________________________________________________________ __
PETER HAUMER
IBM | Eclipse Process Framework Committer
____________________________________________________________ __
"Orlando" <orlando@opencanarias.com> wrote in message
news:ee39i4$v0g$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>
>
> Thank you very much for your reply Peter.
>
> I think you are right. A Develop Software Product Line process produces
> (1) instances (at M0) of the set of core assets (such as guidelines,
> tools, tasks and workproducts) of the software product line as well as (2)
> the Develop Software Product process definition itself, by which members
> of the product line are produced from those core assets. These two
> processes (Develop Software Product Line and Develop Software Product)
> should not be represented within the same SPEM model as the second one is
> extensively the work product of the first one. Do you agree?
>
> Bests regards,
>
> Orlando.
>
>
>
> Peter Haumer wrote:
>> Hello Orlando.
>> Unfortunately, there is still no SPEM 2 metamodel. I am preparing
>> another OMG submission for Monday right now, which has changes in respect
>> to the last submission that still incorporates change requests from the
>> submission partners.
>>
>> When you perform a task that produces a guideline then this guidelines is
>> by definition a work product. Hence you would model a work product (or
>> artifact) called guidance and list that as the output. The guidance that
>> you create in EPF are the instances of such a work product guidance.
>>
>> This is a tricky topic referred to as meta-modeling. The UML
>> Infrastructure document explains this much better than I can, but: SPEM
>> or EPF processes define a model (also sometimes referred to as M1
>> objects). In your case you seem to be creating a process about process
>> modeling itself (which makes it a bit more complicated to understand).
>> Even so, that process can describe how you create work products called
>> guidance. The instantiation of your process (on the M0 level) would
>> produce concrete guidance instances such as "Run a brainstorming
>> session". These guidance instances can be created and managed in the EPF
>> tool. It is just a coincident that your work product is part of the SPEM
>> meta-model, but there is no need for an extra association. Otherwise, you
>> need to link every other concept of SPEM to task as well, e.g. for a task
>> that produces a process, a task that produces a work product definition,
>> etc. These are all plain work products.
|
|
|
| Re: Modeling SPL processes with SPEM 2.0 [message #18694 is a reply to message #18629] |
Thu, 14 September 2006 09:33 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: orlando.opencanarias.com
Many thanks Peter.
I'll try to get in touch with Jim Ruehlin to know if I can help
in any way.
Bests,
Orlando.
Peter Haumer wrote:
> I think they can be represented in the same model as long it is clear when
> you are on which level. But probably you are right. It would be best to
> manage them as separate Method Plug-ins giving them a physical separation as
> well making it easy to create configurations to exclude one from the other.
>
> Rational used to publish a Process Engineer Process (PEP) for the RPW
> environment, which was a process for process engineering. This one, too,
> was managed as its own plug-in. (Btw. we started something similar in EPF,
> lead by Jim Ruehlin and looking for contributors.)
>
|
|
|
| Re: Modeling SPL processes with SPEM 2.0 [message #565092 is a reply to message #17110] |
Fri, 01 September 2006 03:12 |
Peter Haumer
Messages: 228
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hello Orlando.
Unfortunately, there is still no SPEM 2 metamodel. I am preparing another
OMG submission for Monday right now, which has changes in respect to the
last submission that still incorporates change requests from the submission
partners.
When you perform a task that produces a guideline then this guidelines is by
definition a work product. Hence you would model a work product (or
artifact) called guidance and list that as the output. The guidance that
you create in EPF are the instances of such a work product guidance.
This is a tricky topic referred to as meta-modeling. The UML Infrastructure
document explains this much better than I can, but: SPEM or EPF processes
define a model (also sometimes referred to as M1 objects). In your case you
seem to be creating a process about process modeling itself (which makes it
a bit more complicated to understand). Even so, that process can describe
how you create work products called guidance. The instantiation of your
process (on the M0 level) would produce concrete guidance instances such as
"Run a brainstorming session". These guidance instances can be created and
managed in the EPF tool. It is just a coincident that your work product is
part of the SPEM meta-model, but there is no need for an extra association.
Otherwise, you need to link every other concept of SPEM to task as well,
e.g. for a task that produces a process, a task that produces a work product
definition, etc. These are all plain work products.
--
Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.
____________________________________________________________ __
PETER HAUMER
IBM | Eclipse Process Framework Committer
____________________________________________________________ __
"Orlando" <orlando@opencanarias.com> wrote in message
news:ed3v8s$595$1@utils.eclipse.org...
> Hello everyone!
>
> I'm working on a implementation of SPEM 2.0 metamodel with EMF/Eclipse
> platform. I know the EPF project is not specifically about SPEM 2.0;
> however, since the latter is highly related to EPF, perhaps someone could
> give me some valuable feedback ;-)
>
> I'm highly interested on modeling software product line (SPL) procesess
> with SPEM 2.0, that is, the SPL development process (1) and the actual
> product development process (2). Workproducts produced in process 1 are
> extensively used during process 2. The problem arises when we take into
> account that workproducts from process 1 can be tools and guidelines as
> weel as ordinary workproducts.
>
> I seems to me that It would be very useful if tools and guidelines could
> be the output of activities and/or tasks; thus we could represent in a
> single model the whole relationships between SPL development process and
> the actual products development processes.
>
> It'd be very helpful any comment to have these procesess (and their
> relationships) modeled in SPEM 2.0.
>
> Bests,
>
> Orlando.
|
|
|
| Re: Modeling SPL processes with SPEM 2.0 [message #565270 is a reply to message #17283] |
Mon, 11 September 2006 09:16 |
Orlando
Messages: 3
Registered: July 2009 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Thank you very much for your reply Peter.
I think you are right. A Develop Software Product Line process produces
(1) instances (at M0) of the set of core assets (such as guidelines,
tools, tasks and workproducts) of the software product line as well as
(2) the Develop Software Product process definition itself, by which
members of the product line are produced from those core assets. These
two processes (Develop Software Product Line and Develop Software
Product) should not be represented within the same SPEM model as the
second one is extensively the work product of the first one. Do you agree?
Bests regards,
Orlando.
Peter Haumer wrote:
> Hello Orlando.
> Unfortunately, there is still no SPEM 2 metamodel. I am preparing another
> OMG submission for Monday right now, which has changes in respect to the
> last submission that still incorporates change requests from the submission
> partners.
>
> When you perform a task that produces a guideline then this guidelines is by
> definition a work product. Hence you would model a work product (or
> artifact) called guidance and list that as the output. The guidance that
> you create in EPF are the instances of such a work product guidance.
>
> This is a tricky topic referred to as meta-modeling. The UML Infrastructure
> document explains this much better than I can, but: SPEM or EPF processes
> define a model (also sometimes referred to as M1 objects). In your case you
> seem to be creating a process about process modeling itself (which makes it
> a bit more complicated to understand). Even so, that process can describe
> how you create work products called guidance. The instantiation of your
> process (on the M0 level) would produce concrete guidance instances such as
> "Run a brainstorming session". These guidance instances can be created and
> managed in the EPF tool. It is just a coincident that your work product is
> part of the SPEM meta-model, but there is no need for an extra association.
> Otherwise, you need to link every other concept of SPEM to task as well,
> e.g. for a task that produces a process, a task that produces a work product
> definition, etc. These are all plain work products.
|
|
|
| Re: Modeling SPL processes with SPEM 2.0 [message #565299 is a reply to message #18614] |
Tue, 12 September 2006 18:13 |
Peter Haumer
Messages: 228
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
I think they can be represented in the same model as long it is clear when
you are on which level. But probably you are right. It would be best to
manage them as separate Method Plug-ins giving them a physical separation as
well making it easy to create configurations to exclude one from the other.
Rational used to publish a Process Engineer Process (PEP) for the RPW
environment, which was a process for process engineering. This one, too,
was managed as its own plug-in. (Btw. we started something similar in EPF,
lead by Jim Ruehlin and looking for contributors.)
--
Thanks and best regards,
Peter Haumer.
____________________________________________________________ __
PETER HAUMER
IBM | Eclipse Process Framework Committer
____________________________________________________________ __
"Orlando" <orlando@opencanarias.com> wrote in message
news:ee39i4$v0g$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>
>
> Thank you very much for your reply Peter.
>
> I think you are right. A Develop Software Product Line process produces
> (1) instances (at M0) of the set of core assets (such as guidelines,
> tools, tasks and workproducts) of the software product line as well as (2)
> the Develop Software Product process definition itself, by which members
> of the product line are produced from those core assets. These two
> processes (Develop Software Product Line and Develop Software Product)
> should not be represented within the same SPEM model as the second one is
> extensively the work product of the first one. Do you agree?
>
> Bests regards,
>
> Orlando.
>
>
>
> Peter Haumer wrote:
>> Hello Orlando.
>> Unfortunately, there is still no SPEM 2 metamodel. I am preparing
>> another OMG submission for Monday right now, which has changes in respect
>> to the last submission that still incorporates change requests from the
>> submission partners.
>>
>> When you perform a task that produces a guideline then this guidelines is
>> by definition a work product. Hence you would model a work product (or
>> artifact) called guidance and list that as the output. The guidance that
>> you create in EPF are the instances of such a work product guidance.
>>
>> This is a tricky topic referred to as meta-modeling. The UML
>> Infrastructure document explains this much better than I can, but: SPEM
>> or EPF processes define a model (also sometimes referred to as M1
>> objects). In your case you seem to be creating a process about process
>> modeling itself (which makes it a bit more complicated to understand).
>> Even so, that process can describe how you create work products called
>> guidance. The instantiation of your process (on the M0 level) would
>> produce concrete guidance instances such as "Run a brainstorming
>> session". These guidance instances can be created and managed in the EPF
>> tool. It is just a coincident that your work product is part of the SPEM
>> meta-model, but there is no need for an extra association. Otherwise, you
>> need to link every other concept of SPEM to task as well, e.g. for a task
>> that produces a process, a task that produces a work product definition,
>> etc. These are all plain work products.
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Dec 26 23:05:58 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04125 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
