RE: minutes and call info - metamodel mtg.

[Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>]

Scott,
	if I understand it correctly, the "IdentifiableProcess" approach is the top-down approach where you first draw the Business Process and, then, you derive the PPs from it.

If my understanding is correct:
	- would a "One-to-One" exchange between two partners be a BP?
	- in a more sophisticated BP, which involves more partners and more steps,
	  could I (in a first approximation) consider the BP as a collection of
	  PAs ? 

/Stefano

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM [mailto:srh@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 4:02 PM
> To: Karsten Riemer
> Cc: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: Re: minutes and call info - metamodel mtg.
> 
> 
> BP/CCers,
> My appologies for not being at this meeting last Monday. Here is what
> is in my head on some of this. I have also copied in a reference to discussion
> on some of this we have had on the Transport/TP lists.
> 
> >We discussed BP relation to TPA. Question of 'what comes first' the BP or the
> >TPP. In all industry standard scenarios BP comes first, TPP is derived and
> >augmented. In the more entrepreneurial .com world TPP's might come first, and
> >BP becomes an assembly of existing TPP's. We agreed to focus on the former
> >scenarios for now. Bob pointed out that the core process work migh also
> >provide a bottom-up or middle-up approach where you build bigger processes
> >from core processes.
> 
> I agree there are two models. I would characterize these two models as
> an "IdentifiableProcess" and a "DynamicConversation".
> 
> IdentifiableProcess:
> is predefined with predefined sequencing and has a set of unique Roles
> that can be played by Parties. A Party's PartyProfile can reference
> the Roles it supports for a given IdentifiableProcess.
> It does seem aligning a building block approach (CoreProcess) makes
> sense. This is along the lines of the current MM, and should be/is the
> current ebXML focus.
> 
> DynamicConversation:
> This supports a model where a DyanmicConversation is started with a
> fixed set of initial Parties. There is a form of understanding
> of the interaction content capability for each involved Party,
> but there is no predefined sequencing. I believe accomplishing
> this within the fixed ebXML life is not achieveable.
> 
> >We need access to the actual .mdl model, not just the .doc
> >specification document.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> >Next meeting October 10. at 9 am PST, 12 pm EST.
> >Preliminary agenda:
> >.....
> >Discussion of BP elements needed for TP.
> >Discussion of Partner definition.
> >............
> 
> Agree we need this but a focus on the PP (PartyProfile) not the
> Partner/Party (which is it anyway?).
> I am now thinking that there is no real "merge" of the BP MM and a PA. A PP
> should be registered and reference which IndentifiableProcesses/Roles it
> supports.
> From there, Parties negotiate a PA (PartyAgreement) instance to support the
> runtime.
> [some of these terms, PP, PA, have now become firm in other groups, so lets
> use them].
> 
> This week in the TP f2f we will have this discussion.  Here is a pointer to
> some of the same converstation........
> 
> http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-tp/200009/msg00090.html
> 
> Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
> XML Industry Enablement
> IBM e-business Standards Strategy
> 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
> srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
> 
> 
> 
> Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@East.Sun.COM> on 10/08/2000 09:41:06 PM
> 
> Please respond to Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@East.Sun.COM>
> 
> To:   ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org, ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
> cc:
> Subject:  minutes and call info - metamodel mtg.
> 
> 
> 
> Minutes from Metamodel meeting 10/2/2000
> 
> Agenda:
> 
> 1.   Review of context matrix, and identification of metamodel element
> representing each context
> 
> 2.   Discussion of plans for arriving at XML representation for business
> processes defined against the metamodel
> 
> 2.a. Identification of minimal required content of an XML document
> representing a business process in order for it to be the functional basis
> for
> deriving a Trading Partner Profile (i.e. half of a Trading Partner
> Agreement)
> 
> 2.b. Discussion of use of XMI
> 
> 3.   Feedback from last weeks walk-through of the AIAG example 
> expressed as
> a
> model against the metamodel.
> 
> 
> Attendees:
> 
> Bill McCarthy
> Bob Haugen
> Edwin Young
> Core Casanave
> Mike Rowley
> Jean-Jacques Dubrais
> Anne Hendry
> Antoine Lonjon
> Paul Levine
> Stefano Pogliani
> Sharon Kadlec
> Tim McGrath
> Karsten Riemer
> 
> We went over the table of contexts with Jim Clark's annotations of meta
> model
> elements. Bill McCarthy and Bob Haugen to update document with 
> comments and
> corrections, and to work with Jim Clark to update metamodel where 
> required.
> 
> We discussed classification schemes. Reg/Rep model of a hierarchy of
> classifiers and a type of relationship called classification appears to
> cover
> all the needs.  However, it is unclear who in BP/CC is responsible for
> providing list of possible values for these classifiers. Sharon said that
> this
> was up to trade/industry bodies. But we at least need examples.
> 
> We discussed XML formats. Antoine had been working on conversion to XMI of
> example activity diagram and sequence diagram. Antoine sent the resulting
> XMI
> to the ccbp-context list. These XMI documents will be discussed at
> Tuesday's
> meatamodel meeting. There was a comment that perhaps the recommended XML
> format is a TA issue. Antoine will contact Duane.
> 
> Sharon asked whether ebXML would/should provide stylesheets to convert the
> contents of a BP model to html. Group agreed that that is not in scope for
> BP
> team. However, we will see what  Sig Handelman and POC comes up with.
> 
> We discussed BP relation to TPA. Question of 'what comes first' the BP or
> the
> TPP. In all industry standard scenarios BP comes first, TPP is derived and
> augmented. In the more entrepreneurial .com world TPP's might come first,
> and
> BP becomes an assembly of existing TPP's. We agreed to focus on the former
> scenarios for now. Bob pointed out that the core process work migh also
> provide a bottom-up or middle-up approach where you build bigger processes
> from core processes.
> 
> We solicited feedback on last week's review of AIAG example. None offered.
> Karsten to schedule to schedule the review of the FSV layer. We 
> need access
> to
> the actual .mdl model, not just the .doc specification document.
> 
> Next meeting October 10. at 9 am PST, 12 pm EST.
> 
> Preliminary agenda:
> Review of XMI documents.
> Attempt to settle on XML format for POC.
> Discussion of BP elements needed for TP.
> Discussion of Partner definition.
> Scheduling of FSV review.
> Process for review of metamodel.
> 
> To access the call, dial 888-699-0348 domestically and +1 732-336-6000
> internationally, with  a PIN of 8955#.
> 
> 
> 
>