BPM not in alignment

[Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

Anders :

I think we need to slot a specific time for discussion about the scope
of ebXML with respect to the marketplace discovery mechanism being
contemplated by BPM.  I don;t see it as possible to implement in phase
one of ebXML but the UML view model dictates it is an inherently
important part of the business process.

IMHO - it must be considered out of scope.  There are many alternative
efforts who already do this work (eCo comes to mind).  We should
definately not preclude any such process from "bolting" n tot he front
end of ebXML.  

Please do not confuse this with the business interface discovery
process.  This is of utmost importance to define.

I also think we need to earmark some time to specifically talk about the
process flow and how the syntax may represent contextual components at
run time.  IF a data component is appearing in two contexts,  there has
to be a mechanism to derive that information and pass it on.  

Scott Nieman has expressed some similar thoughts on this subject.

Duane Nickull


Duane Nickull



"agrangard@nycall.com" wrote:
> 
> Dear TA colleagues,
> 
> The attached proposal on an ebXML meta model introduction is still being
> discussed within TMWG and maybe I thus am sending it to you prematurely.
> However, considering the short time left until our San José meeting and that
> I think it is an excellent document, I urge you to read it and consider how
> it could fit into our specification.
> 
> Kind regards
> Anders Grangard
> 
> ==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE==================
> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 23:33:29 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
> From: Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@East.Sun.COM>
> Subject: ebXML metamodel write-up
> To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
> 
> Hi,
> At the joint TMWG and BP meeting in Minneapolis last week, there was some
> discussion about the relevance of an ebXML metamodel in general, and its
> relationship to the different specifications in particular. I drew a picture
> that seemed to clear up some of the concern. After that there seemed to be
> concencus that we should perhaps consider what we have called the BP
> metamodel to in fact be the overall ebXML metamodel. There was also
> discussion on why we could not simply use the UML metamodel as is. I
> described the concept of a UML profile. After that there seemed to be
> acceptance of our approach. Separately I had a discussion with Klaus Naujok
> about how pieces of the ebXML metamodel could be used independent of other
> pieces, so that people do not get the impression that being ebXML compliant
> is a daunting all or nothing proposition. I have written all of the above up
> in the attached document, and would like to request that this document
> become part of our next release of the BP specification and/or part of the
> architecture specification.
> 
> -karsten
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                              Name: ebXMLmodelOverview.doc
>    ebXMLmodelOverview.doc    Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
>                          Encoding: base64