RE: Suggestion about metamodel

[LONJON Antoine <ALonjon@MEGA.com>]

Hi Karsten,

I agree with your proposal, but I feel we may need to precise the role of 
the BusinessProcessActivityModel.
Does it only represent internal business process. (I think it can)
Is it used to specified shared business processes above
BusinessCollaborationProtocol?

Antoine




-----Original Message-----
From: Karsten Riemer - Sun IR Development
[mailto:Karsten.Riemer@East.Sun.COM]
Sent: mardi 10 octobre 2000 15:24
To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-ccbp-context@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Suggestion about metamodel


Hi Jim, and others who have studied the current BP metamodel:

I would like to suggest that we move the "BusinessProcessActivityModel"
modeling 
element out of the BOM and into the BOV. To me the
BusinessProcessActivityModel 
and its set of Business Tasks are the logical first level of the BOV, i.e.
the 
place where you define your business process as a set of steps, where each
step 
then gets represented as a BusinessCollaborationProtocol.

So I think I am suggesting two things at once. 

The first is merely a presentation aspect. By moving the 
BusinessProcessActivityModel out of the BOM, the BOM more clearly focuses
only 
on the categorization of business processes and the mapping of their mutual 
transition to each other. By moving BusinessProcessActivityModel to the BOV
you 
more clearly see all the layers minimally required to define the flow of a 
single business process.

The second part of my suggestion has more impact. I am suggesting that the 
BusinessTasks within a BusinessProcessActivityModel map directly to a 
BusinessCollaborationProtocol, rather than via a
BusinessCollaborationUseCase.
This would be much simpler for modeling the business process sequence top to

bottom.
I realize the impacts in that then we need a better place to tie in the REA 
model. I would suggest that that, too, could be at
BusinessCollaborationProtocol 
level. We have been discussing a good reification approach for the REA
anyway. 
I also realize that there are other attributes of
BusinessCollaborationUseCase 
that need to be carried forward to the BOV level, and if my suggestion is to

work, we need to address those as well.

The main thrust of this proposal is to be able to define a business process 
sequenc in terms of:
      
BusinessProcessActivityModel-->BusinessCollaborationProtocol-->CommercialTra
nsac
tion
      
instead of the current

BusinessProcessActivityModel-->BusinessCollaborationUseCase-->BusinessCollab
orat
ionProtocol-->CommercialTransaction

What do other people think?

-karsten

 

---------------------------------------------------
Karsten Riemer,
Director, Information Architecture,
Enterprise Management Architecture Group
Sun Microsystems Inc.,
MailStop UBUR03-313
1 Network Drive,
Burlington, MA 01803-0903

ph. 781-442-2679
fax 781-442-1599
e-mail karsten.riemer@sun.com