RE: Notation to support BPSS

["Welsh, David" <David.Welsh@nordstrom.com>]

I'd think at this time, while we have a version 1.0 ebXML and want to get to a version 2 and CEFACT is in the process of bringing out the next necessary evolution for ebXML BP, we should :
1. stay with TMWG's UMM and the use of UML for the immediate interm period.
2. ask anyone wishing to propose changes to hang on to them and table them thru new CEFACT channels.

I'm open for new ideas, don't want to discourage them, but I think we need a bit of procedure so we can get to version 2. I'm just pointing out a timing issue.
-Dave



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Haugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 8:06 AM
> To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: RE: Notation to support BPSS
> 
> 
> I'm trying to figure out why people are re-inventing notation here.
> We went through all of this several times before, and every time
> ended up with UN/CEFACT UMM being the modeling methodology
> and metamodel.  UMM has a standard way of notating both 
> business transactions and business collaborations.
> 
> The transaction notation (the circular activity diagrams) are most
> developed, having also been used by RosettaNet.  
> 
> The collaboration level is also an activity graph, although there are
> fewer examples.
> 
> My understanding of JJ's notation was that he was complying with
> the UMM-RNet style for transactions.  Is there really any reason
> to invent something new?
> 
> -Bob Haugen
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
>