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."?
Could you then change it in the submission system, Chris?
Thanks and best regards,
Florian
