On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 7:52 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
>
>
> Le 19/7/16 à 11:38, Tudor Girba a écrit :
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think we are talking about two different things.
>>
>> The GT interface is not for people that want to click, but for people that
>> want to program. Not the same audience, and I would certainly not use it for
>> products dedicated to people that do not want to program. We need a better
>> infrastructure for end-user products, and what we have now is not enough. I
>> think that is not a Moose problem, but a Pharo one, and it can only change
>> with Bloc/Brick.
>>
>> Also, we are talking about the development version of Moose, not the
>> stable one. The development version is not meant to be stable (even if it
>> turns out to be stable enough). For the Moose 5.1/Pharo 4 version, we had a
>> couple of patches that happen after the release, and they got integrated in
>> the respective configurations. I think that shows that we can do that if we
>> really need to.
>>
>> About a Famix fork: could it be that you are referring to extensions to
>> Famix that are specific to the languages that you are parsing, and not for
>> the common parts? If not, I would love to hear where the issues are and how
>> we can correct them, because I did not see public issues that were not
>> integrated in quite some time.
>>
>> In any case, I am happy that you are interested in investing in the
>> modeling parts (Fame and Famix). For example, it would be great to have
>> traits deeply used. I would be happy to work with people in any direction.
>> Just make it public and let’s solve real problems.
>
> Ok noted. I was sure you would say that so we will see.
> This was discussed some years ago on this mailing-list. Check emails of
> nicolas and anne.
>
> We will send a call for job with a description of tasks we want.
> In a nutshell and from memory
>     - easier way to describe metamodels (probably based on platypus)
>     -- better handling relationships (union....)
>     - probably revisit the bootstrap of FAME because it is really arcane.
>     - use of slot for inverse FMmultivalue link
>     - using traits at the meta meta level
>     - see how we can integrate better with dynacase toolings

(a little off-topic but a minor business opportunity...)
  
If you are updating the metamodel, would you consider making the OMG Model Driven Architecture (MDA) [1] compatibility loading from XMI files a first class citizen.  

To put this in perspective for just one industry... 
Historically when electricity markets were provisioned by single government owned entities, each network could be managed with unique and monolithic software systems. In comparison, the trend today to deregulate electricity markets requires a growing number of independent market participants to interact, which in turn requires standardisation of the system model.  

The U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) put the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in charge of coordinating development of protocols and model standards to achieve interoperability of Smart Grid devices and systems.    The U.S. Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of Energy met with executives from Smart Grid industries to commit to supporting NIST in this endeavour with a $3.4 billion in government grants and $4.7 billion from private companies.  NIST ran public workshops encompassing 1,500 individual Smart Grid stakeholders to produce a document [2] defining sixteen Priority Action Plans of which three encompassed the IEC 61970 Common Information Model (IEC-CIM) (refer Table 2-2 [3]).  

The market for Smart Grid-related hardware, software, and services was forecast in 2009 to be $43 billion for the U.S. in 2014 and $171 billion globally. There has** to be a market for helping energy utilities to understand and convert their legacy software to the new interoperable Standards, and to track the history of model revisions for which Moose might be an appropriate tool.  For example, [7] indicates about $140M in research funding that at least touches IEC 61970.

Enterprise Architect is being quite smart about it - getting in bed with standards organisations utilising MDA to produce industry information models [4].  Thus everyone that wants to interoperate with anyone else in these domains needs to use the International Standard, and EA is there ready to help by providing a free viewer.  Indeed the IEC-CIM is maintained as a UML model [5] using EA, and the dozen IEC 61970 standards documents are generated from the model.   (btw buying the dozen or so IEC 61970 Standards Documents probably costs a few grand [5], but the CIM model is free to download (see attached screen snapshot) for universities after signing up to the CIM User Group [6])

** Except where I live the opportunities are not so great having one small 3GW grid with 4 main generation operators versus the European 1023GW grid with 41 generation operators interconnected over 35 countries.    

[4] http://www.sparxsystems.com.au/partners/standards.html
[5] https://webstore.iec.ch/searchform&q=iec%2061970
[6] http://www.ucaiug.org/Pages/join.aspx
[7] http://www.gridplus.eu/Documents/20130228_EEGI%20Roadmap%202013-2022_to%20print.pdf

cheers -ben