| AW: [jwt-dev] EclipseCon Abstract |
|
Hi all, here is the updated version of the submission for EclipseCon. At the
moment, I’m not that happy about the middle part (describing the JWT
editor), not content-wise but because of the now somewhat lengthy sentence
structure which makes it more difficult to read than before but I haven’t
got any idea on how to improve it. Maybe you’ve got some idea. Regards, Chris Make Your Processes
Executable! Business
managers often model their processes as an abstract version. They are not
concerned about how those will be executed later on (and they shouldn't be!).
The additional information needed by a process engine running the process will
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 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 (in order to reflect 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. The
process model also builds the basis for automatically generating XPDL- or
WSBPEL-code. We will also show the possibility to monitor the process
during execution on the engine as well as 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.
Von:
jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag
von Florian Lautenbacher 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 |