RE: agenda issues for TechArch ConfCall

["Duane Nickull" <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

Cory et al:

<cory>
I would also like to see more separation between the business processes and
the templates for transforms between these processes. One would hope that a
large number of users would be sharing the same base specification and would
then not need any transform (except from their internal processes).  A
precise and normative transform between different business processes is a
bit dicey, perhaps this is more of a registry to be used when collaborators
do not share a capability to support the same B2B process.
</cory>

The business processes are what drives one side of a template by providing
the I/O needs.  Other than a conversion, the actual process should not be
represented in the template.  In other words,  the template converts "x"
into "y", but does not tell you what to do with "y". What the mapping
template can tell you is that "y" is equal to "foo", an object in the "bar"
library.  In other words,  I am totally agreeing.

I would assume that a large number of users will adopt a base specification
too.  There will always be those who cannot conform due to inability to
support "y" or "foo".  Those will rely on the presice and normative
translation between objects and processes.  The translation of a *process*
should not semantically change the process, only the expression of it.  Kind
of like *pointers in C/C++ which are difficult to typecast.

My $0.02

Duane Nickull

>