Re: Formal proposal submission: BPSS

[Philip Goatly <philip.goatly@bolero.net>]

Karsten,

 I would suggest that if you do not want duplication of effort in
maintenance of the standard that the XML is removed, not
the UML, and that we decide on production rules for UML to XML.

Cheers, Phil Goatly.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Karsten Riemer - Sun IR Development" <Karsten.Riemer@Sun.COM>
To: <knaujok@home.com>; <knaujok@iona.com>
Cc: <ebxml-bp@ebxml.org>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:48 PM
Subject: Formal proposal submission: BPSS


> To the chair of eBTWG:
>
> Attached, please find my formal proposal for a BPSS project.
>
> I understand there may be a parallel proposal being forwarded to you.
> But I wanted to list the reasons why this proposal is preferable:
>
> 1. Degree of specificity in deliverables.
>
> Since this is for a project under a temporary WG, and since there are no
other
> specific charters governing such projects, I feel that the project
proposal
> needs to be quite specific as to deliverables for the next year. In
essence, the
> project proposal is the contract between UN/CEFACT and the people
investing
> their time on the project.
>
> 2. Agressiveness of schedule.
>
> Since it is unclear to me how new minor and major versions may be
sanctioned for
> release under eBTWG, I wanted to clearly specify each release and make it
clear
> that these releases must hit the market at an aggressive schedule to have
any
> impact. They cannot wait for an annual plenary approval.
>
> 3. UN standard status.
>
> Since I have not seen any action to deliver on the UN/CEFACT promise to
> fasttrack ebXML specifications to UN standard status, I wanted to make
that a
> deliverable for the BPSS project. Who else would best champion the
> standardization than the writers of the standard?
>
> 4. Focus on runtime XML interoperability, not on modeling.
>
> Since BPSS is a XML based specification of the runtime aspects of
eBusiness
> Collaboration, it needs to be very well positioned with everything else
that
> goes on in XML based eBusiness, particularly web services and other XML
based
> process definition languages. This alignment is in fact more important to
the
> relevance of BPSS in the marketplace than its alignment with UMM. This is
why
> the proposal spells out a specific web service aligned release.
>
> 5. Focus on XML not on UML.
>
> Since BPSS is an XML dialect, it is important that the people working on
this
> project have a strong background in XML standards. Knowledge of UML is not
a
> requirement for being on the BPSS project. In fact, I would recommend that
the
> UML diagrams be removed from the current specification. They only lead to
> duplicate maintenance and opportunity for ambiguity.
>
> 6. Focus on software executability, not on business modeling.
>
> Since BPSS deals with the runtime aspects of the collaboration, not with
the
> modeling and design of the collaboration, it is important that the people
> working on this project have a good understanding of the envisioned
> collaboration software stack. Knowledge of Open-EDI, UMM, or modeling
> methodology is not a requirement from being on the BPSS project.
>
> Concluding note:
>
> Criticism was made of how in 1.0 BPSS diverged from the UMM model. I
personally
> take that not as criticism, but as acknowledgement. It is essential to the
> survival of BPSS in the marketplace that it be flexible enough to go where
the
> prevailing XML interoperability trends go, even if it means that the
mapping to
> UMM becomes more indirect.
>
> With this, I hereby respectfully submit to the eBTWG chair the proposal
that I
> believe best benefits BPSS as a competitive XML based eBusiness
Collaboration
> standard.
>
> -Karsten
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Karsten Riemer,
> b2b Architect
> XML Technology Center
> Sun Microsystems Inc.,
> MailStop UBUR02-201
> 1 Network Drive,
> Burlington, MA 01803-0903
>
> ph. 781-442-2679
> fax 781-442-1437
> e-mail karsten.riemer@sun.com
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This message has been checked for all known viruses by the
> MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit
> http://www.messagelabs.com/stats.asp
>