| 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! 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
|
