RE: BPSS ... transaction integrity, questions

[James Bryce Clark <jbc@lawyer.com>]

David, it would be extremely helpful to my understanding of the BPSS review
to understand how much flexibility, so to speak, is the right amount from
your perspective.     

I think your general idea, that the BPSS is a big tent under which a lot of
systems should flourish, is dead right.   Of course, at some point, the
tent is so big, and constrains so little, that users can't interoperate and
there is no reason for a spec.   

Do your comments indicate:
  - you like the BPSS as is, e.g., v0.99 now in public review
  - you believe the OAG UML model[s] are [compatible | incompatible |
irrelevant] to the CEFACT-UMM UML model
Can you further advise?

Given where we are in the calendar, one draft turn and two weeks away from
a public 1.0 release, my personal bias is that we should stick with the
long-standing decision to conform BPSS to CEFACT's UMM, as far as the BPSS
goes, while leaving the top collaborative layer (now omitted from the BPSS)
for future development (and yes, probably competing tools).    

Also, Is there a part of the OAG model(s) to which you refer that
non-insiders can access, and that would be helpful to review?    

Jamie Clark from the metamodel group

At 06:51 AM 4/13/2001 , you wrote:
>If I may jump into this thread,  The Open Applications
>Group currently has over 60 Business Process Collaborations
>defined in their UML model and has definite plans to adopt
>the BPSS.
>
>We plan to populate the BPSS with our process content and
>we are working with some vendors now to support this.
>
>I encourage that the BPSS support flexibility as we have found
>many customers who are not willing to accept a "standard"
>process defined by someone else.  By what we can tell, the
>ebXML BPSS is flexible and therefore we and our constituency are
>happy with it.
>
>David Connelly

James Bryce Clark
Spolin Silverman & Cohen LLP 
310 586 2404    jbc@lawyer.com