In theory, you can use the CQ Connector to import CQ records as work items, without setting up full synchronization. The general process (not specific to the CQ ALM schema) is described in the "Importing but not synchronizing records" online help topic at

https://jazz.net/jazzdocs/topic/com.ibm.team.connector.cq.doc/topics/t_importing_not_synchronizing.html

You still have to define a mapping between the CQ schema and the workitem configuration by creating synchronization rules. The redbook shows example synchronization rules for the Open Up process template, but if you're using a different process, the example rules may or may not be useful to you.

You asked "how to map the multi-layer ALM records to much simplified RTC work item types", which implies to me that you want to move away from the ALM style of work flow, but if not, then you have the option of defining work item types to try and emulate the ALM schema, which would make the mapping more straightforward.

John
Jazz ClearQuest Connector Team

I saw old post about when RTC CQ connector can support migration/sync between CQ ALM and RTC work item tracking.
The doc mentioned : http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redpieces/pdfs/sg247622.pdf is still a draft.
If we want to move to RTC from ALM with no need for keeping the sync, will it be easier? The key would be how to map the multi-layer ALM records to much simplified RTC work item types, is there any official documentation about using CQ connector's import tool to do it?

Actually, since the redbook example sets up mappings for the Defect and Task work item types, and since it appears that those are the same (from a quick look) in both the Eclipse Way and OpenUp process templates, then there is a chance you can use the example.

However, I warn you that this is going to be a lot of work, due to the complexity of the ALM schema. If you read through the example (appendix B of the redbook), you'll see that modifications are needed to the ALM schema and/or the Jazz process specification in order to make a mapping possible. In particular, for properties like Priority and Resolution, there's a fundamental difference between ALM and work items. In work items, the values for those properties are defined as an enumeration (just a set of possible values). But in ALM, those property values are actually references to other types records, and there is a record instance for each possible value. The connector mapping mechanism can't handle such a difference at this point, so a number of workarounds are used in the example.

Since you just want to migrate from CQ to RTC and not keep them synchronized, another approach you could consider is to use the work item import facility, as described in

https://jazz.net/learn/LearnItem.jsp?href=content/tech-notes/rational-team-concert-1_0-importing-work-items/index.html

This mechanism was designed to import bugs that were exported from Bugzilla. That means you would need to export record data from CQ, and then massage the output into the form required for the importer. (The import format is XML-based, so you would want to choose XML as the export format for CQ. The actual formats are pretty different, however, so quite a bit of "massaging" would be required.)

As far as helping you, if you post questions on this forum, someone will certainly respond.

John
Jazz ClearQuest Connector Team

Thanks, John.
Yes, we are thinking of moving away from ALM if it is possible.
And we are using Eclipse Way process template im our Jazz project. so the work flow mapping described in the redbook is mainly about emulating the ALM schema for the Open Up process template.

Sounds like I'll have to start from scratch to do the mapping for work flow of Eclipse Way process template? Is it wise to even thinking of that? Is there any help we can get from Jazz team?