RE: Suggestion for ebXML Knowledge Dissemination

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

Christian Huemer wrote:
>i do not think that the main design goal for the bp meta model, is
>that everybody participating in ebxml has to understand it. the
>meta model must be able to capture all business semantics within
>a business transaction. 

Not sure if you are disagreeing with the issue, which was that
the big metamodel diagram (lines 114-115 in version2_0.pdf)
is too complicated for any new reader to understand.
It violates all the rules for good diagrams that I know of.

(By the way, just in case anybody does not understand, this
discussion is *not* a criticism of the diagram editor; he just 
did what everybody in the team told him to do, and we
wanted one big diagram to work from.  I expect he
much prefers working with the package diagrams to
maintaining the big spaghetti bowl.)

>in my opinion we need tools allowing modelers to define ebxml conform
>business models (which means that the models are conform to the bp
>meta model). but before we can attract software tool providers to
>build such a tool, we need a rather stable meta model. similarly, a
>new version of the UML meta model is standardized, before tool vendors
>incorporate it into their tools.

I agree with those statements.  What tools do you have in mind?
(Maybe should start another thread...)

>we have to verify if
>existing methodologies (edifecs/rosetta net, swift, oag, tmwg, ...) can
>deliver a ebxml compliant model. 

An excellent point!

>Even more important we must evaluate 
>whether the output (ebxml model) is the same regardless of the 
>methodology used or not. i strongly believe not. if i am right, i think
>we need a common methodology.

Here I disagree.  (Ignoring the question of whether "same output"
from any two design processes is possible) I think we need different 
methodologies for different situations, for example:
* a large company with deep pockets and lots of time could use
  a "start from scratch" requirements-and-analysis-and-design
  process to develop a new ecommerce system;
* but it is also feasible to develop simpler tools to work from
  the metamodel + templates + core components in a 
  forms-based presentation where template slots are
  filled by selecting from core components;
* and as the metamodel scenarios point out, many companies
  have existing processes to convert, which will require yet
  another kind of process;
* plus, I expect software vendors to sell off-the-shelf
  ebXML products.

I also think there is a crying need for a better graphical business 
modeling notation.  It needs to be UML-compatible, but UML is not it
(in my opinion, which many UML experts seem to share).  Most workflow
models won't do, either:  commerce is a resource-flow model, which
is different (maybe another thread sometime...) 
The REA ontology (part of which is included the ebXML metamodel 
Resource and Contracts package) is the best basis I know of for
a metamodel for business modeling.  All(?) that is needed is an
agreed notation and a way to adapt UML tools.

>nevertheless, i like bob's approach of defining packages according
>to a narrative flow. 

Thanks for the support.  I didn't necessarily intend to alter the
existing packages, though. The narrative-storyboard could be
used only for explanation.  Packages have different purposes.

>i think this will also help in giving a first
>guideline on how to produce an ebxml compliant model.

Hope so.

Thanks for the feedback,
Bob Haugen
=======================================================================
= This is ebxml-bp, the general mailing list for the ebXML            =
= Business Process project team. The owner of this list is            =
= owner-ebxml-bp@oasis-open.org                                       =
=                                                                     =
= To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@lists.oasis-open.org with    =
= the following in the body of the message:                           =
=      unsubscribe ebxml-bp                                           =
= If you are subscribed using a different email address, put the      =
= address you subscribed with at the end of the line; e.g.            =
=      unsubscribe ebxml-bp myname@company.com                        =
=======================================================================