Sorry for the delayed response to this.
At this point, the only definite submission will be that from the SEMAT 
folks.
IBM hasn't decided on a strategy - in part it may depend on what EPF 
committers want to do, which is one topic for tomorrow's meeting.

Bruce MacIsaac
Manager RMC Method Content
[email protected]
408-250-3037 (cell)



From:
"Chris Armstrong" <[email protected]>
To:
"'Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List'" 
<[email protected]>
Date:
07/05/2011 07:33 AM
Subject:
Re: [epf-dev] OMG, SPEM, SEMAT, and EPF
Sent by:
[email protected]



Bruce, seems like things got a little better for leveraging SPEM. Do we 
know anything about what submission teams are being formed and if we need 
to form a separate one?
 
Thanks, Chris ~:|
 
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Macisaac
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 11:25 AM
To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
Subject: Re: [epf-dev] OMG, SPEM, SEMAT, and EPF
 

After some revisions, the OMG voted to accept the RFP, now called "A 
Foundation for the Agile Creation and Enactment of Software Engineering 
Methods". 

The final version of the RFP doesn't insist on updating SPEM, but neither 
does it preclude it, as did the earlier versions. 
Also the RFP now explicitly asks for elements from SPEM to be used, and to 
provide guidelines for migration from SPEM-based practices and methods. 
See the paragraphs below: 

 6.5.2.1.5   SPEM 2.0 metamodel reuse 
Proposals shall reuse elements of the SPEM 2.0 metamodel where 
appropriate. Where an apparently appropriate concept is not reused, 
proposals shall document the reason for creating substitute model 
elements. 
6.5.3.2   Existing Practices and Methods 
Respondents shall provide a guideline for how existing SPEM-based 
practices and methods, and possibly other representations, can be migrated 
to the new proposed specification. 
6.7         Issues to be discussed 
b.   Submissions not based on SPEM 2.0 should discuss why they did not use 
SPEM and clearly describe and demonstrate the main differentiators. 

We now need to decide whether or not to submit a response to this RFP. 

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


_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev

Reply via email to