An Introduction to Papyrus

It’s been an interesting few months… After a short consulting contract with Zeligsoft, I have a become an employee. In this new position, I am involved with Papyrus in a product management capacity.

For those who don’t know me, I have extensive background in modeling, having worked with many tools and technologies as well as worked to help define some commercial offerings. So being involved in yet another modeling tool should be no surprise. Papyrus, however, is different from those with which I’ve worked: It’s open source… So in addition to the challenges of creating the best product for our customers and clients, there is that of wondering where the money comes from – but that’s a topic for another blog entry.

Papyrus is on the verge of an important milestone: after many years of incubation, both outside and within the Eclipse Foundation ecosystem, it will finally be released at version 1.0 as part of the Eclipse Luna simultaneous release train!

As part of this grand endeavour, I have presented “An introduction to Papyrus“, a short, 35 minutes, talk at Eclipse Day Montreal 2014, held June 10 at Ericsson Canada in Montreal, Quebec. You can find that presentation on Slideshare and below.

 

The adventure will continue next week as I will participate in EclipseCon France. I will be co-lead of a hands-on workshop at the Working Group Unconference on Getting started with Papyrus and giving a talk about Papyrus for Real Time Embedded Systems development. If you are in Toulouse, France, next week, look me up at the conference!

EclipseCon France 2014

EclipseCon France 2014

MDA, MDD, MDE

Jordi Cabot has an interesting Blog on Modeling Languages. In it (an on LinkedIn) there was a discussion recently on the difference or similitudes between MDA, MDD, and MDE. It’s interesting that Wikipedia treats the last two as the same thing – I like Jordi’s description better.

However, as I read Jordi’s blog posting, I found that his explanation certainly makes sense and is probably correct nowadays, in a more modern sense of the terms.

However, “MDD” has been used for quite a long time to describe model-based (as opposed to model-driven) development. That use of the term would not fit within the definitions presented by OMG as part of MDA (e.g., the CIM/PIM/PSM levels of abstractions and transformations). I suspect that this approach may also still be in use today – although probably not the best way of working with models. This may especially be true of some of the model uses seen in “agile” approaches.

So perhaps there is a need, in the diagram shown on that blog, to also have a model-based development (MBD?) circle that would intersect with MDD, but not the others?

All this also can not be discussed without mentioning the standards, processes, and methods (and the effect of tools on these) surrounding these approaches. Models need to have a standard representation to be useful – and the UML (and SysML) is certainly one that is common these days. However, other notations such as BPMN, ERD, etc., should not be discounted as they represent interesting domain specific modeling languages – and not all can be easily expressed using UML . Tools are too often viewed as a panacea to what ails software development – when they can be a hindrance when one does not understand the standards, processes, and methods they support.

RSD and UPDM: Enterprise Architecture for Systems

Steve Hovater has just published to developerWorks a great article on using the new UPDM functionality in RSD 7.0.5. The article takes you through a short introduction to UPDM, followed by the creation of a small model, and concluding with the use of Eclipse BIRT to create the associated DoDAF views.

If you are into systems development or enterprise architecture, I would recommend you take a look!

Comments on “IBM And Microsoft Have Dueling Visions For Software Modeling”

According to InformationWeek, IBM And Microsoft Have Dueling Visions For Software Modeling. However, the article only compares Rational’s contribution to the modeling space and seems to completely ignore other Software Groups contribution. The Microsoft part talks about proprietary models that drive business execution directly. That is all fine, but there is no mention of WebSphere Business Modeler (WBM). In WBM, the organisation can be modeled and then code (BPEL) can be generated to drive WebSphere Process Server. Granted, there is a “code generation” step, but it is a lot closer to the Microsoft model than the comparison the article makes with the use of UML. IBM has a richness of environment to help our customers with their various needs – and this article seemed to only concentrate on a piece of our offerings.

And of course, the recent IBM announcement was in regards to the Complex Systems space and Olso is apparently geared towards IT. I wonder how Microsoft’s Oslo would fare in the development of complex systems?!?

Powered by ScribeFire.