RE: eBTWG BPSS Project Proposal

[Cory Casanave <cory-c@enterprise-component.com>]

Bob,
	I think I need to disagree with you, while lending support.  What we
have in BPSS now - choreographed long-term interactions of business
documents, is beyond what other standards are offering and more than most
people expect.  "monitored commitments  [] enabling business users to define
business processes declaratively.  " goes well beyond this and into areas
that do not have a wide experience base.  BPSS is a computational model,
monitoring commitments to this level of detail could qualify as a
"completely new language for business process analysis".  Much of the
challenge of this is that the processes and artifacts of these commitments
extend well into the enterprises and beyond what is in computational form
(written/verbal contracts and physical deliver being some of these).
Additionally we will want to integrate processes where there is no desire to
analyze processes in this way to do business.  

	So, I think the agenda for this new language exists, but it is not
hidden - you have been quite consistent in the direction.

	But - this does not make it invalid work.  The direction you are
proposing is certainly based on business semantics and could provide a
valuable way to design, make and fulfill commitments using automated
systems.  It fits with the UMM work in this area and would extend it to this
computational level.  I suspect this may take some time - just the education
process will be substantial, but this does not mean the direction should not
be explored.  So I suggest we endorse the direction but keep it "loosely
coupled" with the other work so that it may proceed at its own rate.

	Regards,
	Cory Casanave

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	bhaugen [SMTP:linkage@interaccess.com]
> Sent:	Monday, August 27, 2001 9:02 AM
> To:	Maarten Steen; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org; ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org
> Subject:	Re: eBTWG BPSS Project Proposal
> 
> Maarten Steen
> > Sometimes, I get the feeling there is a hidden
> > agenda in some of the project proposals (like the one on monitored
> committments) to come
> > up with a completely new language for business process analysis.
> 
> Not really.  The monitored commitments project wants to move
> in the direction of enabling business users to define business processes
> declaratively.  The declarations will need to map to one or more
> implementation
> languages, via predefined analysis components (for example, commitment-
> fulfillment relationships, which is the example of the idea that the
> project
> will focus on).
> 
> The idea is for business people to be able to say "I want to use the XYZ
> order-fulfillment pattern" with maybe a little customization, rather than
> needing to muck about with transitions, forks, joins, etc.  The patterns
> could be implemented in different languages, as in current software
> design patterns.
> 
> Clear enough?  There are examples of patterns at the business transaction
> level in the UN/CEFACT UMM documents, for example, offer-acceptance.
> We're just taking the idea up a level to longer business collaborations.
> 
> -Bob Haugen
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.ebtwg.org/ob/adm.pl>