RE: Collaboration Services (was: Business Service Interface)

[Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>]

Hi,
	Sounds good to me. Eventhough we have been concentrating on
intra-enterprise stuff, nothing stops one to use ebXML for EAI as well. So
the trading partners might be departments inside an organization with
implied/trusted relationship anyway.

	cheers

-----Original Message-----
From: Welsh, David [mailto:David.Welsh@nordstrom.com]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 9:48 AM
To: 'Bob Haugen'; 'Krishna Sankar'
Cc: 'ebXML-BP@llists.ebxml.org'; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: Collaboration Services (was: Business Service Interface)


Bon, Krishna,

Ok, I can buy some of the suggested terms ...
So ... we can say ebXML is ...


"Collaborating business activities representing (core) business processes
(made from core components) hosted in a Repository and normally qualified
thru standard methods when a trading relationship is negotiated and
maintained."


How does that sound ?
30 words or less !!

No mention of party/partner but if lawyers like it or not there's some form
of a logical (maybe legal has another slant)relationship, if we're
'ebXML-ing'. Maybe it's only an incidental commercial relationship falling
under general consumer protection legislation, or maybe it's driven thru a
more bilateral contractural relationships. Me I'm hoping ebXML can
semi-automate (better than today) the setup and ongoing maintenance of
electronic trading relationships - and I'll leave the "deal making" to
people.

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Haugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 5:12 AM
To: 'Krishna Sankar'; Welsh, David
Cc: 'ebXML-BP@llists.ebxml.org'; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: Collaboration Services (was: Business Service Interface)


I would go with Krishna's second suggestion,
"collaborating business activities".

Also, I would remove the word "automatically" from the
trading partner negotiations.  Human judgment might
be required.

-----Original Message-----
From:	Krishna Sankar [SMTP:ksankar@cisco.com]
Sent:	Sunday, October 22, 2000 9:20 PM
To:	Welsh, David; 'Bob Haugen'
Cc:	'ebXML-BP@llists.ebxml.org'; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:	RE: Collaboration Services (was: Business Service Interface)

Collaborating Business sub-processes or Collaborating business
activities/tasks

-----Original Message-----
From: Welsh, David [mailto:David.Welsh@nordstrom.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 5:26 PM
To: 'Bob Haugen'; 'Welsh, David'
Cc: 'ebXML-BP@llists.ebxml.org'; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: Collaboration Services (was: Business Service Interface)


Would you care to help me replace "collaborating workflows" with some other
phrase. I do admit 'workflow' is very general term, especially when you've
seen half a dozen vendors claim to have workflow and all implementations are
different.
I think the phrase needs to be something simple to understand / not too
technical, yet something for the person in the street that triggers a 'Very
cool !' response.

Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Haugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 5:02 PM
To: 'Welsh, David'
Cc: 'ebXML-BP@llists.ebxml.org'; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: Collaboration Services (was: Business Service Interface)


<David Welsh>
So ... in simple terms ...
we should have "collaborating workflows" representing (core) business
processes (expressed in XML and made from core components) hosted in the
Registry/Repository and normally 'qualified thru some standard methods' when
a trading part??? (with all respect to party or partner) agreement is
automatically negotiatied ?
</David Welsh>

Very cool!  I like it! (except for the term "workflow", but I suppose
that depends on what is meant.)

Thanks for condensing,
Bob Haugen