Re: BPM not in alignment

["agrangard@nycall.com" <anders.grangard@edifrance.org>]

Duane,

I have added this on Tuesday at 11:00. To spark an interest - I do not
necessarily think that it is out of scope. The fact that someone is doing it
today is true for everything we are doing with the possible exception smart
core components.

Regarding your second point I am not sure I understand it but it looks like
something that Core Component is already addressing. Regardless - give me a
good agenda title and I will add it. Is Wednesday 10:00 good?

/Anders
----- Original Message -----
From: Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>
To: Nieman, Scott <Scott.Nieman@NorstanConsulting.com>
Cc: ebXML-Architecture List <ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 12:59 AM
Subject: BPM not in alignment


> 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