Dear EPF community,
There was a recent submission to OMG to propose a new process standard.
It is not based on SPEM or any of the work we have done in EPF, but rather
is based on the SEMAT kernel work.
(For those who don't know this, EPF was originally based on SPEM
http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/2.0/ )
Some reasons given for why the proposal ignores SPEM is:
1. "lack of enactment support"
If this is a significant concern, then a set of requirements for what
would be appropriate enactment support should be described in the RFP.
A goal to what people actually do vs. what they are supposed to do isn't a
sufficient set of requirements.
There are some hints in the RFP, but they aren't clear:
"Methods can be queried to get guidance based on where you are and where
you want to go"
- this seems to be about describing how the processes evolve during
enactment - this could be a natural extension to SPEM
2."The notion of composable practices is not explicitly defined as a core
concept in the SPEM metamodel"
This seems to be a gap which could be addressed by a SPEM update. Note
that both SEMAT and EPF have gone beyond SPEM and
added support for practices to their method offerings. They both use
similar concepts and provide similar capabilities, but not identical.
This kind of divergence is exactly the kind of problem that standards
organizations like OMG strive to avoid, so the time
is ripe to add practices support to SPEM.
3. "UML profile ... might be more complex and not as user-friendly as a
more domain-specific language"
There is also a MOF representation of SPEM, but in any case, any approach
for simplifying is welcome, but doing something completely unconnected
doesn't make a lot of sense.
4. SPEM does not specify a kernel of "essential elements"
Both SEMAT and EPF define such a kernel, but use different terminology and
have made different choices regarding those essential elements.
Again, this is where standards are valuable - they align the best of
divergent ideas so that the entire community can benefit.
The EPF kernel has been defined and publicly available for some time. It
is well supported by both the EPF Composer and Rational Method Composer
tools.
It is based on an extension to SPEM.
A natural path forward would be to take the EPF kernel and formalize it in
an extension to SPEM, reconciling differences with the SEMAT kernel to the
benefit of the entire community. I propose an extension, because I think
SPEM should remain capable of modeling processes that don't use a kernel,
or
that use alternative kernels.
If this is a topic that interests you, and you would like to be involved
in this discussion, please drop me a note.
Bruce MacIsaac
Manager RMC Method Content
[email protected]
408-250-3037 (cell)
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
