Bruce, thanks for taking the time to do this review. FWIW, it still seems to me that what SEMAT's trying to achieve is pretty compatible with SPEM as a starting point. I have not seen anything yet that appears to be a showstopper.
I do plan on getting more involved, particularly around formalizing SEMAT content in a prototypical, extended version of SPEM. Thanks, Chris ~:| Chris Armstrong ~:| President Armstrong Process Group, Inc. 651.491.5575 c 651.204.9297 f <mailto:6514915...@tmomail.net> 6514915...@tmomail.net cell message <http://www.aprocessgroup.com/> www.aprocessgroup.com "proven practical process" Access APG's <http://apg.coursehost.com/course/c23sq8> Introduction to Enterprise Architecture web-based training (WBT) for no charge. Absolutely free! Upcoming Events --------------- <http://www.omg.org/news/meetings/tc/ca-11/info.htm> OMG Technical Meeting December 12-16, 2011, Santa Clara, CA --------------- <http://www3.opengroup.org/sanfrancisco2012> Open Group Conference January 30-February 3, 2012, San Francisco, CA --------------- From: epf-dev-boun...@eclipse.org [mailto:epf-dev-boun...@eclipse.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Macisaac Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:04 AM To: epf-dev@eclipse.org Subject: [epf-dev] Review of the proposed SEMAT language specification Hello EPF Community, The following is a summary of my review of the SEMAT language, including a mapping to the SPEM/UMF constructs used by the EPF Practices library. My conclusions are that SPEM/UMF and SEMAT are very compatible and should be aligned. My review does not include the current language specification, as the SEMAT team has not yet released it for public consumption. Here is a summary of the language provided by the SEMAT team (sorry for the lack of detail). The SEMAT core team is focussed on evolving their own new ideas, and not on alignment with SPEM, but I will continue to push for alignment. In addition to defining a language, SEMAT is also defining a set of "universals" the roughly correspond to our work product slots. The main difference is that universals have state. Universal states are a way to think about project progress. So you can talk about how the requirements are progressing, how the architecture is progressing, etc. This is an interesting innovation that could be useful in EPF as well. I plan to do a separate study of how EPF Practices could make use of universals and universal states. If anyone is interested in participating in such an effort, let me know. Also anyone that is interested in participating in SEMAT is welcome to do so. Contact Ivar Jacobson <i...@ivarjacobson.com> to ask to participate. If you don't get a response, you can also ask one of the track chairs - contact information below. *) Reviewing or contributing to the kernel > Contact persons: Ian Michael Spence <ispe...@ivarjacobson.com> or Paul E. McMahon <pemcma...@aol.com> > > *) Reviewing or contributing to the language > Contact person: Michael Striewe <michael.stri...@paluno.uni-due.de> > > *) Creating or reviewing example practices: > Contact person: Paul E. McMahon pemcma...@aol.com > > *) Theory track > Contact person: Michael Goedicke <michael.goedi...@paluno.uni-due.de> Bruce MacIsaac Manager RMC Method Content bmaci...@us.ibm.com 408-250-3037 (cell)
_______________________________________________ epf-dev mailing list epf-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
