RE: Proposed BP PT comments on Requirements

["Paul R. Levine" <plevine@telcordia.com>]

Bob, thanks for your comments.  I'm sure my comments suggest an expansion in
scope of ebXML to some, but not all participants.  The second paragraph of the
ebXML Terms of Reference follows:
"The purpose of ebXML initiative 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 data in application to application, application to person and person to
application environments."

To me, A2A applies within an enterprise as well as between enterprises.  Now I
realize the OAG is in this space.  The TeleManagement Forum (which is very
interested in XML applications for OSS integration as well as electronic
business between telecommunications service providers) is interested in the
Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) work of the OAG, and is considering use
of their XML-based Business Object Definitions (BODs) as a means for
CORBA/Java-based building blocks to interoperate with data in legacy systems.
As you know, we have included the OAG metamodel among those being considered in
developing  the ebXML "superset" metamodel.  Our intention is not to duplicate
what the OAG is doing, but to have a specification for business process
definition (BPDS) within which the OAG business process definition will fit.

The TM Forum is interested in working with ebXML to extend the UML-based
business process models and XML derivations in the ebXML repository for
telecommunications specific applications.  Similar to the TMWG Unified Modeling
Methodology, the TM Forum and International Telecommunication Union (ITU) are
developing requirements and analysis specifications/standards for the
telecommunications management network (TMN) in protocol-neutral UML, such that
interfaces can be designed according to technologies of choice, including XML.
The TMN model for information exchange is not so much message-based as
interactive, i.e., between client and server.  To quote one of our Telcordia
engineers,

'Object-orientation and command-error-response services are really the issues.
Instead, I was thinking about generating some examples of generalized UML use
cases for such applications as:
   Query of an external database
   Updating an external database
   Notification of change to a database
   Requesting an action to be performed, with response
   Validating data from a local redundant database against an external steward
   of the data
   Auditing integrity of related databases
   Maintaining integrity of related databases
Each of these use cases should document the command sent from manager to agent
(or client to server), a generalized set of error responses, and the anticipated
response (successful completion of action, requested data, generated report,
test results, audit exceptions, etc.).  Examples in standard CORBA/IDL,
CORBA/XML (as it evolves), and queued-message XML would be useful.  The intent
of standards activity related to XML is to use it interactively, in an
object-oriented environment."

I'd be interested in other's opinions.

Best regards,

Paul Levine

---------------------- Forwarded by Paul R. Levine/Telcordia on 03/23/2000 09:06
AM ---------------------------


Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com> on 03/23/2000 08:27:45 AM

To:   "ebXML-BP@lists.oasis-open.org" <ebXML-BP@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:    (bcc: Paul R. Levine/Telcordia)
Subject:  RE: Proposed BP PT comments on Requirements




Paul Levine wrote:
>I have taken the opportunity to propose a few other
>revisions that specifically include within the ebXML scope app-to-app
>applications of XML within an enterprise.  This is very important for large
>enterprises that have networks of operations support systems that have to
>interoperate.

Why duplicate what the OAG is doing in this space?
Is there anything wrong with their efforts?
Is there any real confusion about the generally-accepted
app-to-app standards org?  (Anything like the obvious confusion
about B2B standards?)
What do you think this will do to the scope of ebXML?
Won't it require expanding to include everything in the
OAG standards and then some?

As you can tell, I am resistant to an expansion of scope,
but do not want to misunderstand your proposal.
Can you explain more about why you are proposing it?
And maybe more of the scope of your intention?
(For example, if all you mean is party-to-party dealings within
an enterprise, where "parties" are different business units, and
the same ebXML B2B standards can be used, then my objections
do not hold.  But if you mean any and all internal apps, and
all their integration requirements, I suspect it's a big expansion.)

Respectfully,
Bob Haugen