| AW: [jwt-dev] EclipseCon Abstract |
|
Hi
Chris,
thanks for your
comments. Please find attached my comments to your comments
;-)
Make Your Business[0]Processes Executable!
Business managers model their processes often as[1] an abstract
version. They are not concerned about how those will be executed later on (and
they shouldn't be!). The actual execution
information[2] will[3] be added by
the technical staff afterwards. But what happens if the modeled process shall be
deployed on different process engines? Each vendor requires different
data which has to[4] be added to the process
model. The Eclipse Java Workflow Tooling (JWT) project
answers these requirements in its EMF / GEF-based Workflow Editor by providing
support for different views on the workflow, e.g.
technical or business, that reflect the role of the user, [5] and flexible model aspects[6] that allow easy
customization to adapt it to handle specificities of target runtime platforms
and existing data, as well as of modeled business domains.
The process model also builds the basis for automatically[7] generating XPDL- or
WSBPEL-code [8]. We will also show the
possibility to monitor the process during
execution[9] as well as we'll demonstrate our integration with the
Eclipse STP project (e.g. by generating code for the STP-Intermediate Model) and
within Service Oriented Architectures[10] more generally. [0] refer to business processes specifically?
FL: I found the briefness of the title good which is why I removed "business" from the title (which I had at the beginning, too). If you don't mind, I would prefer leaving the title as it is. [1] absolutely not sure here, it’s been a long time since the last english lesson ;)
FL: I guess you're right. "as" is better than "in". [2]
maybe change to something like “information that is needed by process engine
that runs the process” to make the meaning of the term clearer for people which
are not familiar with which kind of information has to be added to abstract
business process to make them executable [3] I think changing “can” to “will” could highlight that this is the usual way to go
FL: OK, let's change it into: "The actual information that is needed by a process engine running the process will be added by the technical staff afterwards". [4] Stress the fact that this is not a pleasant business ;)
FL: Agreed. [5] Insert this?
FL: okay, but putting the "that reflect the role of the user" in brackets? "...for different views on the workflow, e.g. technical or business (in order to reflect the role of the user)"? [6] I’m not sure if someone who is not familiar with EMF knows the business process is represented as a model. Maybe keeping it more abstract like “and an easy and flexible aspect-oriented customization mechanism that allows to handle…”
FL: Agreed. "the role of the user) and an easy and flexible aspect-oriented customization mechanism that allows to handle specifities of target runtime plattforms and existing data as well as of modeled business domains"? [7] Always good if something happens automatically
FL: Okay. [8] “…that can be executed by compatible process engines…”?
FL: We already said that processes are executed on a process engine in the first part, so I would rather leave it as it is here. [9] just my personal preference
FL: Fine. [10] what would you think of changing STP and SOA, starting with SOA in general and then referring to the STP project?
FL: Why not? Something like "we'll demonstrate our integration within Service Oriented Architectures in general and the Eclipse STP project (e.g. by generating code for the STP-Intermediate Model) in particular."? |