Re: Subject: RE: eBTWG Proposal BPSS Revision Project 0.3 DRAFT

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

Timothy,

  Well said - I wish I could have said it as well myself.

Cheers, Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Collier, Timothy R" <timothy.r.collier@intel.com>
To: <ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org>; <alonjon@mega.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 6:22 PM
Subject: Subject: RE: eBTWG Proposal BPSS Revision Project 0.3 DRAFT


> Antoine,
>
> I think what is being discussed here is clearly a focal point for
> determining the direction of BPSS, and possibly its future.  Who is the
> intended user of BPSS?  Is it a business analyst, who wants to model their
> activities in a manner close to the logical business process? Or, is the
> user an implementer who needs to model a specific solution?  Their needs
are
> quite different.  For the analyst, they will want the ability to model
more
> of a state diagram approach, where the entire "manage purchase order"
model
> is depicted, for example.  Including request purchase order, some number
of
> optional modify purchase order, some number of optional query purchase
> order, as well as ship, and cancel purchase order.  All of these
activities
> should be expressible as part of the same model, in a logical (but not
> necessarily executable) model.
> In an executable model approach, where the workflow specifications
> are starting to crop up (WSFL, XLANG, ...), the user is constrained to an
> edge directed, acyclic, pi-calculus based model.  You cannot in these
> approaches model larger granularity activities like manage purchase order.
> This is where problems like prohibiting transition to self force the user
of
> the model to model their system in ways that are not in keeping with what
is
> really happening at the business level.  They must think like a
programmer,
> and make sure all of the activities are deterministic.
> I am not saying one approach is right or wrong, what I am trying to
> point out is - if BPSS is going to go down the path of being executable,
and
> compete head on with the web services specifications, it should do so only
> after clearly understanding who their customer is and what need it is
> addressing.
>
> Tim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: LONJON Antoine [mailto:alonjon@mega.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 7:14 AM
> To: 'Maarten Steen'; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: RE: eBTWG Proposal BPSS Revision Project 0.3 DRAFT
>
>
> Marteen,
>
> Thanks again Marteen for your clear position and statements.
> I would also like to highlight that several points.
>
> 1. Executability is a major issue that can only be solved with clear
> semantic defined at the XML layer.
>
> 2. There is going to be a big next step with UML in its 2.0 version. UML
as
> any specification needs to be improved. Lots of major issues are going to
be
> addressed in this revision. My guess is that this is also going to change
> UMM.
>
> 3. There are outside ebXML a number of other XML specifications for
> communication over the internet, especially the webService camp. Nobody
can
> ignore that the major vendors are investing in that direction. WSFL from
IBM
> is really a sign of that evolution (WSFL sits on top of webService
> definition to define ....... choreography of services .....)
> Without a focus the points (4, 5, and 6) highlighted by Marteen, the BPSS
> project could become isolated from the implementation world without the
> knowledge of people that can grant real executability and .... market
> adoption.
>
> Regards,
> Antoine
>
> Antoine Lonjon
> Chief Architect
> MEGA International
> Tel   : 1 781 890 3442 ext 18
> Cell  : 1 781 983 1536
> email: alonjon@mega.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maarten Steen [mailto:maarten.steen@telin.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 5:17 AM
> To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: Re: eBTWG Proposal BPSS Revision Project 0.3 DRAFT
>
>
> I think all three proposals (Brian's, Karsten's and David's) are close
> enough to allow
> for a compromise that keeps everyone happy. As I said before, I would
> support either
> proposal, but I'd like to see the following points addressed in the
> final proposal.
>
> In his submission Karsten makes a few very valid points (4, 5, and 6)
> that need to be
> addressed by the BPSS or the BCSS project:
>
> 4. Focus on run-time interoperability, not on modelling.
> 5. Focus on XML not on UML
> 6. Focus on executability, not on business modelling.
>
> 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.
>
> Therefore, I'd like to see a work item on defining the semantics of
> business
> collaborations.
>
> 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?
>
> Regards,
> Maarten Steen
>
>
> "Hayes, Brian" wrote:
>
> > Dear Collegues:
> >
> >      I am submitting for further review the proposal I emailed last
> > Friday, Aug 24th (subject: eBTWG BPSS Project Proposal).  The comments
and
> > Karsten Riemer's alternative proposal have been good input.  I was asked
> at
> > today's BP teleconference to review Karsten's proposal and see if I
could
> > come up with a compromise proposal.  There was a good deal of similarity
> > between the two proposals.  However found it difficult to envision a
> > compromise proposal since the nature of the proposals are significantly
> > different.
> >
> >      Here is a summary of the changes that I made to the version 0.2,
Aug
> > 24th proposal:
> >
> > + 1.2 Scope - Changed "and implment in the BPSS the substantive changes
> > developed by other projects..." to "and implement limited changes to the
> > BPSS recommended by other projects..."
> >    [This addresses John Yunker's concern about substantive changes.  The
> > limitation on changes is also addressed in the description of the first
> > deliverable.]
> >
> > + 2 Deliverables
> >   + Changed schema version in the first bullet to "1.0.1+" from "1.1".
> >      [Aligns with Karsten Riemer's proposal, first bullet of
Deliverables]
> >
> >   + Added deliverable
> >      - Consideration of renaming of the Business Process Specification
> > Schema
> >        to the Business Collaboration Specification Schema
> >        (This is to differentiate the schema with specifications and
> > implementations
> >         that address internal "business process," EAI, and workflow)
> >     [Addresses Todd Boyle's concern]
> >
> >   + Changed deliverable "Business Process Specification Schema 1.x and
> 2.0"
> > to
> >     "Requirements for Business Process Specification Schema 2.0"
> >       (Document requirements for the future version of the
specification;
> >       the requirements include incorporating other ebXML and related
> > standards
> >      work and improving its related model and objects)
> >     [This captures the stuff that is out of scope for the project but
will
> > likely be discussed in the course of the project.]
> >
> >   + Added explaination to deliverable "Identify opportunities to
> coordinate
> > with other relevant standards"
> >      (Includes, but is not limited to, web services standards and
> >      internal process flow/language standards)
> >     [This captures the web services, XML runtime process languages, and
> > other eBusiness standards aspects of Karsten Riemer's proposal.  I think
> > this "deliverable" gives the project significant leeway to address
> various,
> > but relevant, standards.]
> >
> > + 3 Functional Membership
> >    Changed opening paragraph and bullets to
> >      "The project team is a group of experts with broad knowledge and
> > experience in the areas of national and international business processes
> > and
> > information exchanges crossing multiple vertical industry and service
> > sectors, as well as representation from the technical development and
> > implement ion community."
> >     [Per suggestion from Klaus-Dieter Naujok]
> >
> > I hope my changes capture everyone's input.  My new plan is to submit
this
> > the eBTWG chair on Wednesday, Aug 29th, end-of-business-day.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Brian Hayes
> > +1 (925) 520-4498
> >  <<BPSS-Revision-Project-WIP-O.3.htm>>
> >
>
> --
> Dr. ir. Maarten W.A. Steen - Scientific Researcher
> Telematica Instituut, Postbus 589, 7500 AN  Enschede, The Netherlands
> http://www.telin.nl/
> phone: +31(0)53 4850 321
> fax: +31(0)53 4850 400
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> 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
>