Re: BPM not in alignment

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

Since the purpose of the document partly was to visualise where the
different PTs fit in, I think this could be an interesting exercise also for
the Coordination PT. You are welcome.

Anders
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@tedis.com.au>
To: ebXML-Architecture List <ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org>
Cc: 'ebXML Coordination' <ebxml-coord@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 4:37 AM
Subject: Re: BPM not in alignment


> i have been following this thread over the past few days and think it
raises
> some useful points about the understanding of the 'scope' of each group's
> activities.
>
> perhaps it would be reasonable for a representative from the technical
> co-ordination group to participate in this session as well
>
> "agrangard@nycall.com" wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> --
> regards
> tim mcgrath
> TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
> phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142
>
>