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
Hello Florian, all,
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!
-Juan
[1] http://wiki.eclipse.org/STP/IM_Component/Plug-in_Structure
*From:* Florian Lautenbacher [mailto:florian.lautenbacher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
]
*Sent:* Thursday, May 08, 2008 10:03 AM
*To:* 'Java Workflow Toolbox'; 'Andrea Zoppello'
*Cc:* 'Juan Cadavid'; 'Marius Brendle'
*Subject:* AW: AW: [jwt-dev] Re: STP/IM questions/help
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Von:* jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
] *Im Auftrag von *Adrian Mos
*Gesendet:* 06 May 2008 12:35
*An:* Java Workflow Toolbox; Andrea Zoppello
*Cc:* Juan Cadavid; Marius Brendle
*Betreff:* Re: AW: [jwt-dev] Re: STP/IM questions/help
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.
Thanks,
Adrian.
---------------
*Adrian Mos*
ObjectWeb Project
SOA Technical Lead
adrian.mos@xxxxxxxx <mailto:adrian.mos@xxxxxxxx>
http://ow.inrialpes.fr <http://ow.inrialpes.fr/>
+33 4 76 61 54 02
*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-----
Von: jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Andrea Zoppello
Gesendet: 05 May 2008 17:06
An: Marius Brendle
Cc: jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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
--
*Andrea Zoppello*
___________________________________________
<www.spagoworld.org <http://www.spagoworld.org>>
Spagic Architect
___________________________________________
Architect
Research & Innovation Division
*Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A.
*
Corso Stati Uniti, 23/C - 35127 Padova - Italy
Phone: +39-049.8692511 Fax:+39-049.8692566
*www.eng.it <http://www.eng.it> www.spagoworld.org <http://www.spagoworld.org
>*
_______________________________________________
jwt-dev mailing list
jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
jwt-dev mailing list
jwt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jwt-dev
