Re: eBTWG Proposal BPSS Revision Project 0.3 DRAFT

[bhaugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

From: Maarten Steen 
> We have already enough modelling languages, not only for internal
> business processes
> but also for defining collaborations. What we really need from ebXML is
> an exchange
> format for collaboration specs. Moreover, this exchange format should be
> based on a
> sound meta-model for business collaborations and have proper semantics.

UN/CEFACT UMM is a good start on a sound metamodel for business 
collaborations. Its Economic Modeling Elements are also a good start on 
proper semantics.  More work on business semantics will be done both 
in ISO and UN/CEFACT TMWG.  If we can keep all these efforts 
coordinated, these improvements can be reflected in the runtime
BPSS.

> Therefore, I'd like to see a work item on defining the semantics of
> business collaborations.

The Collaboration Patterns and Monitored Commitments project
will do some more work on putting the semantics of business collaborations
together with the runtime execution.  Not everything - we deliberately
carved out a narrow slice.  But we think it is an important slice.

> Unlike Karsten, I believe alignment with the UMM metamodel is important.
> It defines our
> vocabulary, but it does not necessarily have to be the law. Let's put
> the UMM
> meta-model to the (executability) test. Is it possible to define a
> proper operational semantics for it?

I agree 100%.

-Bob Haugen