I am doing a project about the topic desinging and implementing an M2M Application using OM2M. When I found some documentation in the internet, I know that the OM2M is defined based on the ETSI-M2M and OneM2M Standard. These two standards make me a bit confused about the similarity. Can anyone tell me what is the difference between these two standards, the ETSI-M2M standard and OneM2M standard?
Thank you so much!
I will try to help from the standard prospective, not in terms of the implementation
ETSI M2M was developed starting form 2009, and two releases were completed. In the meantime was identified the need to globalize the solution, so ETSI and its members approched other companies and other Standard Organizations to build a common project, and this is today oneM2M.
It is worth to remember that oneM2M is not a new Standard Organization, it is simply shared Partnership Project among existing organizations to merge the efforts and the expertize to provide better specifications.
Technically speaking, the principles are the same, the key Resources are still Applications, Containers and Access Rights (ACP in oneM2M). And the principle of separation of the semantic treatment from the platform is still the same.
So de facto Release 1 of oneM2M is a sort of "Release 3" of ETSI M2M. But be careful, they are not backward compatible.
Being practical, I would suggest you to look directly at Release 1 and 2 of oneM2M. A lot of improvement has been added by the different partners making it more easily usable.
In particular Release 2 finalizes the semantic interworking framework to be build around the platform, providing inter technology interworking and data sharing.
I hope I was usefull.
Enrico Scarrone,
Telecom Italia - TIM
ETSI SmartM2M Chairman,
oneM2M Steering Comittee Vice Chair
Related
I stuck how to proceed further and need some new ideas to align these BPMN models which I have drawn for Customer Relationship Management(CRM) and Human Resources(HR).
As far as BPM model is considered it's mainly used for Business Architecture(BA) and then for Technical Architecture(TA) I could possibly use Rational Unified Process(RUP) but when I researched I could only find IBM Rational Rose Software which is not free...
My Question:-
Is there, open Source RUP tools which I can use? I looked up OpenUp but I could not make it work(which is a different issue).
Is this the right approach; for BA -> BPM and TA -> RUP ?
The scope of BPMN (BPMN specification 1. Scope ) describes
The primary goal of BPMN is to provide a notation that is readily understandable by all business users, from the business
analysts that create the initial drafts of the processes, to the technical developers responsible for implementing the
technology that will perform those processes, and finally, to the business people who will manage and monitor those
processes. Thus, BPMN creates a standardized bridge for the gap between the business process design and process
implementation.
There are Business process management(BPM) software's which provides process modeling and process execution conformance. Thus effectively making the models executable [at least to a certain depth].
In the free/ open source world you can find jBPM, Activiti etc...
I have tried out jBPM, is pretty much mature and has standard notations compliance. Also it supports modeling, execution and operational functionalities.
Traditional categorization of processes is talking about integration, human centric and document centric processes, with the last one as a good candidate for placing inside the DMS system (of course, the prerequisite is that there is a built-in support for BPM).
But I was unable to find some concrete,more detailed explanation of the distinction between those options.
Imagine a company, that have Enterprise BPM solution , and also a DMS system with quite good support for BPM (i.e. Filenet DMS).
In both systems you can create user screens and workflows (process logic) as well.
Also, most processes working with documents are also quite "human-centric".
I am perfectly aware of the fact, that choosing the target platform always depends on the requirements and specific circumstances, but I wonder, if there are some general rules, or principles, based on which I can better decide where to put the process layer of the whole solution.
Additional clarification:
I don't want to implement any new platform. As I indicated a little bit in the previous post, we already have BPM platform (Oracle) and DMS as well (Filenet with BPM support - Case Foundation). So the question is not about choosing the new platform...but more about setting the rules for using the existing products/platforms. There are a lot new projects in the queue...and for some of them (that are touching the area of working with documents) we need to decide the target platform/s. For example, when you have a simple process with a few steps, and in all steps there is some work with an existing document (the document - or at least his original version, is also input to this process), the requirements on the front-end are not very complicated etc...it would simpler to build the whole solution in the Filenet platform( mostly because of the cost). But I am wondering if there are some similar rules....Like you should think about that or that... when you want use only the DMS platform...or both platforms etc. You can call these rules the principles for development, references architectures or something like that....that is guiding you when designing the target architecture/s.
Thank you
I'm reposting the answer because I don't see a reason for deletion (by #Bohemian).
I think it adds value to anyone asking the same question. #Bohemian could have at least specified why he deleted the post.
Here it goes:
You gave us rather small amount of information. And what exactly is
the question? What do you mean by "where to put the process layer"?
You shouldn't constrain yourself to only those DM systems that claim
to have BPM built-in. That's marketing speak behind which often lay
two half-baked products. You should instead question which
standards-based integration points the system has, so you can
integrate effortlessly. And then invest in best-of-breed DM and best
BPM separately. All-in-one solutions are often too closed, difficult
to extend and above all, they bring free vendor-lock-in with them.
What are your business requirements, i.e. what do you have to do?
Implement BPM inside organization that already has DM or not? Do you
have some BPM platform already? Do you have any
constraints/requirements when choosing either of those (vendor,
technology foundation, Gartner quadrant...)?
What are the options you're considering for DM and which options are
you evaluating (if any) as a BPM platform? Have you already settled on
IBM or you can go elsewhere? Is open source an option?
What is your role/responsibility in this project?
EDIT - after the author's clarifications:
I have not worked with Oracle's BPM, but I can tell you that, although Case Foundation is more suited to Case Management, you can develop a complete Process Management solution with it (workflows, tasks, roles, deadlines, in-baskets, etc.).
If you go that path and later come across the business need to allow business users to define their own case templates, take a look at IBM Case Manager, as it builds on top of Case Foundation, but also brings additional WebUI features (built on IBM Content Navigator), suitable for business users (although, more often than not, it turns out the IT does that job).
A few IBM redbooks about Case & Content management that might help you make an informed decision:
Introducing IBM FileNet Business Process Manager - this is the former name for Case Foundation - the same product, new version.
Advanced Case Management with IBM Case Manager
Customizing and Extending IBM Content Navigator - you'll need this one for customizations, if you decide to go with CF (instead of Oracle).
Building IBM Enterprise Content Management Solutions From End to End - from ingestion to case/process management (contains Case Manager).
I agree with #Robert regarding integration, after all, before version 5.2 FileNet Content Platform Engine was FN Content Engine + FN Process Engine.
The word of advice I can give you is to first document all features that business requires from BPM. Then do a due diligence on both products, noting down which of those features each of those products supports. Then the answer, if not laid out in front of you, will at least be much easier.
You also have to take into account that IBM is oriented towards IBM BPM (former Lombardi) when process management is concerned. Former FN BPM is now more pushed into Case Management (but those two are very similar paradigms).
You should definitely post back about your experience, whichever option you choose.
Good "luck" :)
I'm trying to understand where SBE's complement or replaces traditional requirements documentation. The diagram levels of requirements shows three levels of traditional software requirements.
Which of the items below (from the diagram) does SBE replace and which ones does it complement:
Vision and Scope Document
Business Requirements
Use Case Document
User Requirements
Business Rules
Software Requirements Specification
System Requirements
Functional Requirements
Quality Attributes
External Interfaces
Constraints
My naive understanding of SBE's would say that the SBE's are just an alternative form of the Software Requirements Specification. Is this correct?
BDD and SBE are normally used by Agile teams, who don't focus as much on documentation as traditional software development teams do.
BDD is the art of using examples in conversation to illustrate behaviour. SBE then uses the examples as a way of specifying the behaviour that you decide to address (I always think of it as a subset of BDD, since talking through examples often ends up to eliminating scope, discovering uncertainty or finding different options, none of which end up as specifications).
There are a couple of things that are hard to do with BDD. One of them is anything which isn't discrete in nature, or which needs to always be true throughout the lifetime of the system - non-functionals, quality attributes, constraints, etc. It's hard to talk through examples of these. These continuous aspects of requirements lend themselves better to monitoring, and that's discrete, so BDD can even be used to help manage these.
Since an initial vision is usually created to help the company make money, save money, or protect existing revenue (stopping customers going elsewhere, for instance), you can even come up with examples of how the project will do this. In fact, if you can't, the project is likely to fail anyway. So BDD / SBE can also be used to help complement an initial vision and scope.
Therefore, BDD / SBE can complement all of these documents, and in Agile teams, the documents themselves are usually replaced by conversations about the requirements and rules (illustrated by examples), story cards to represent placeholders for those conversations, and perhaps some lightweight capture of those conversations on a Wiki.
It is unlikely that any Agile team captures all of their examples up-front, as this leads to excessive investment in the requirements and tends to turn it into a traditional Waterfall /SDLC project instead.
This blog post I wrote about BDD in the Large may also be of interest.
I'm figuring that CORBA is considered a legacy technology that just refuses to die. That being said, I'm curious if there are any known standards out there that are preferred (and are also as platform independent.)
Thoughts? TIA!
Many organization are moving to WebServices and the open standards relating to them (HTTP, WS-*) as alternatives to Corba.
This article provides a comparison of the two technologies and offers some recommendations on when to use which.
If you really care about platform independence and protocol standardization - then the WS-* standards are something to look into.
There is now a state of the art modern CORBA implementation using C++11, TAOX11. This uses the new IDL to C++11 language mapping. For TAOX11 see the TAOX11 website. TAOX11 is supported on a wide range of platforms and compilers.
I have recently tried Google Protocol buffers, they seem rather similar to CORBA by design (some kind of IDL with compiler, binary compact messages, etc). It is probably one of the many possible successors.
Web services are good for the right tasks but creating and parsing messages needs more time and text based messages are more bulky than binary ones. REST API with JSON looks like a good solution where binary protocols do not fit well.
ICE from ZeroC aims to be a "better CORBA".
Unfortunately their licensing terms are crap (at least last time I checked with them), as they do not sell developer licenses but only (roughly) per-installation terms.
It is offered via GPL license too, if you can live with this.
What tools are available for metamodelling?
Especially for developing diagram editors, at the moment trying out Eclipse GMF
Wondering what other options are out there?
Any comparison available?
Your question is simply too broad for a single answer - due to many aspects.
First, meta-modelling is not a set term, but rather a very fuzzy thing, including modelling models of models and reaching out to terms like MDA.
Second, there are numerous options to developing diagram editors - going the Eclipse way is surely a nice option.
To get you at least started in the Eclipse department:
have a look at MOF, that is architecture for "meta-modelling" from the OMG (the guys, that maintain UML)
from there approach EMOF, a sub set which is supported by the Eclipse Modelling Framework in the incarnation of Ecore.
building something on top of GMF might be indeed a good idea, because that's the way existing diagram editors for the Eclipse platform take (e.g. Omondo's EclipseUML)
there are a lot of tools existing in the Eclipse environment, that can utilize Ecore - I simply hope, that GMF builts on top of Ecore itself.
Dia has an API for this - I was able to fairly trivially frig their UML editor into a basic ER modelling tool by changing the arrow styles. With a DB reversengineering tool I found in sourceforge (took the schema and spat out dia files) you could use this to document databases. While what I did was fairly trivial, the API was quite straightforward and it didn't take me that long to work out how to make the change.
If you're of a mind to try out Smalltalk There used to be a Smalltalk meta-case framework called DOME which does this sort of thing. If you download VisualWorks, DOME is one of the contributed packages.
GMF is a nice example. At the core of this sits EMF/Ecore, like computerkram sais. Ecore is also used for the base of Eclipse's UML2 . The prestige use case and proof of concept for GMF is certainly UML2 Tools.
Although generally a UML tool, I would look at StarUML. It supports additional modules beyond what are already built in. If it doesn't have what you need built in or as a module, I supposed you could make your own, but I don't know how difficult that is.
Meta-modeling is mostly done in Smalltalk.
You might want to take a look at MOOSE (http://moose.unibe.ch). There are a lot of tools being developed for program understanding. Most are Smalltalk based. There is also some java and c++ work.
Two of the most impressive tools are CodeCity and Mondrian. CodeCity can visualize code development over time, Mondrian provides scriptable visualization technology.
And of course there is the classic HotDraw, which is also available in java.
For web development there is also Magritte, providing meta-descriptions for Seaside.
I would strongly recommend you look into DSM (Domain Specific Modeling) as a general topic, meta-modeling is directly related. There are eclipse based tools like GMF that currently require java coding, but integrate nicely with other eclipse tools and UML. However there are two other classes out there.
MetaCase which I will call a pure DSM tool as it focuses on allowing a developer/modeler with out nearly as much coding create a usable graphical model. Additionally it can be easily deployed for others to use. GMF and Microsoft's Beta software factory/DSM tool fall into this category.
Pure Meta-modeling tools which are not intended for DSM tooling, code generation, and the like. I do not follow these tools as closely as I am interested in applications that generate tooling for SMEs, Domain Experts, and others to use and contribute value to an active project not modeling for models sake, or just documentation and theory.
If you want to learn more about number 1, the tooling applications for DSMs/Meta-modeling, then check out my post "DSMForum.org great resources, worth a look." or just navigate directly to the DSMForum.org
In case you are interested in something that is related to modelling and not generation of code, have a look at adoxx.org. As a metamodelling platform it does provide functionalities and mechanisms to quickly develop your own DSL and allows you to focus on the models needs (business requirements, conceptual level design/specification). There is an active community from academia and practice involved developing prototypical as well as commercial application based on the platform. Could be interesting ...