RE: 16 Mar. Conference Call notice

[Christian Huemer <ch@ifs.univie.ac.at>]

> 
> 1. The focus of the ebXML business process metamodel
> should be the external relationships of trading partners,
> not the internal processes of individual companies.
> 

agree

> 2. The external relationships we should focus on first
> are those involved with purchasing, or exchanges of
> resources between parties.
> 

...

sorry, bob i do not agree with the following points. i know that many 
people joined the ebxml initiative after the first meeting. so i just 
want to refer to the terms of reference:

"The purpose of ebXML/WG is to research and identify the technical basis upon 
which the global implementation of XML (Extensible Markup Language) can be 
standardized. The goal is to provide an open technical framework to enable XML 
to be utilized in a consistent and uniform manner for the exchange of Electronic 
Business (EB) data in application to application, application to person and 
person to application environments. The scope of ebXML/WG initiative is to 
develop and publish, in the public domain, relevant and open technical 
specifications in support of domestic and international EB exchanges."

To deliver content is not the focus of ebXML (at least for project phase I).

A business meta model is a model that allows us to describe the artifacts
of business process modeling. Therefore, the meta model must be completly
independent of a certain domain. An example should only be used to
verify/test/explain the meta model.

But we need some reusable components in ebXML. So, there should be a 
methodology on how to specify reusable components. Of course, the business 
process meta model must be able to capture these artifacts. And there
should be a further step in this methodology on how to translate the
reusable components from a business presentation (UML) into an XML
presentation. That is the way to get ebXML core components. But in my
opinion the core components team mainly focus on the XML presentation,
instead of providing a methodology for defining "business-related"
core components. 

... so what i really want to say is that some of the ideas presented
should be part of core components PT and not of BP PT. Unfortunatly,
due to my heavy workload during the last weeks i was not able to
study your REA approach in detail, but i think it goes more in the
direction of defining business patterns, which should be created by
core components team.

regards,
christian