comments/suggestions on BP model

[Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@East.Sun.COM>]

Here is a list of my comments to the current Business Process Model 
(Marcia, please record these as formal comments so that we can discuss
them in our conference call on Monday)
I don't know where you are at in the number sequence so I'll use letters for
now:


a. There should be an association from BusinessService to
BusinessServiceInterface since the latter implements the former. It should be
many to many.

b. There should be a way to discover offered BusinessServices within markets.
I am thinking of a 'yellow pages' style classification of BusinessServices. I
propose a BusinessServiceCategory class with many-to-may associations to both
Market and BusinessService. This proposal item may be due to my lack of
understanding of MarketRoleType and MarketRole. If these two can be used to
facilitate a service discovery, then I will drop this proposal item.

c. Whatever we choose for a service discovery might also be applicable to a
'product' discovery. Currently I find ResourceCatalog insufficiently linked to
markets, and artificially linked to 'Dictionary'.

d. I propose changing the association class approach used in
BusinessTransactionConstraint and OrderingRule. Instead use a true class with
two associations. The reason is compatibility with MOF/XMI for interchange of
ebXML models.

e. Association Name 'decomposition' is misleading on the
BusinessTransactionConstraint association. The association is for relating a
constraining transaction to a constrained transaction.

f. We need an ordering rule for business messages within Information
Exchanges. I found this out while mapping the travel request example. I needed
to ensure the ordering so that request is before reply, and if there were
multiple replies then an ordering of replies.

g. The attribute 'direction' on a business message is not by itself enough to
show a sender and a receiver. You have to know that 'from' means the
PartnerRole that is the 'from'  instance of the
PartnerRole-InformationExchange association. I would prefer two associations
InformationExchange-BusinessMessage, but am open to suggestions.

h. We should replace our placeholders BusinessDocument, InformationEntity,
FundamentalInformationEntity with the classes proposed by the Core Components
team.

i. We need to find the proper associations between core components 'Context'
and our classes 'Market', 'PartyType', 'MarketRole' (or -Type),
'EconomicResourceType', 'ProcessCategory', and maybe others. The idea is that
a lot of the 'types' and 'categories' under which you register your process
should become contexts within which you structure your messages.

I will be working on comparing current ebXML business process model with
current EDOC proposal today, and may have some additional minor namechange
suggestions as a result. Will forward them (if any) by end of day today.


thanks,
-karsten




 





=======================================================================
= 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                        =
=======================================================================