Re: BP_Deliverable for QRT review

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@tedis.com.au>]

This is a personal comment from Tim McGrath and not associated with the Quality
Review Team.

Technically, the document addresses some of the major requirements of the BP
Specification in that it specifies a business process definition using 'at least one
industry standard based tool or technique' (i.e. UML).  However, it does not (as
yet) indicate the transformation from the metamodel into XML schema/DTD.  Presumably
this will be done prior to the PoC. (NB it is understood core components and TPA
details are also to follow later as advised)

Overall, this document tries to present complex and abstract concepts and I think
it does a fine job of the detail.  My major concern is that it is difficult to
digest.  Whilst I suspect it is my reading of the document that is unclear and not
the authors or the content itself, this interpretation is from the advantage of
having sat in on some of the background meetings and walkthroughs - not an advantage
external readers will have.  So I suggest the difficulty lies  with communication of
the concept rather than the concept itself.  Some ideas to make it easier to digest
may be...

a. use more real world examples, particularly at the BOM stage. it may be  possible
to use  single case study to illustrate each stage. possibly the experience gained
from the PoC can be used to flesh this out using the AIAG scenarios.  Having said
that, the document must be careful to separate the usages from the metamodel. There
are times when the metamodel is in danger of adopting supply chain (client-supplier)
terminology (lines 140-146).

b. provide an overview illustrating the context (along the lines of that prepared
for the TA Specification). the current executive summary is too 'philosophical'.

c. undertake some judicious editing to apply consistent language (cf defn.s of BOM
lines 78-87 and BRV 252-255) and simplify sentence structures (cf lines 141-146).

d. define the context of certain terms which may be ambiguous, e.g.
abstraction
domain of discourse
collaboration
economic models
stereotype
tagged values
transition
transformation
etc...

Finally, there are a few scoping concerns as well:
a. The document should define a business process metamodel and not the methodology
for reaching the metamodel.  This is not always clear.
b. The metamodel should not define values  for object types (eg lines 356-358). this
is outside the scope of ebXML.

I suspect that by taking it into PoC at this point we will be able to expose any
major deficiencies and also achieve some common understanding amongst participants.
On this basis, I would endorse its use for the PoC.

"Paul R. Levine" wrote:

> Tim,
>
> This will be very useful for us.  Just what we need for now.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Levine
>
> "Tim McGrath" <tmcgrath@tedis.com.au> on 10/12/2000 11:03:01 PM
>
> Please respond to tmcgrath@tedis.com.au
>
> To:   "Paul R. Levine" <plevine@telcordia.com>
> cc:   "'ebXML Coordination'" <ebxml-coord@lists.ebxml.org> (bcc: Paul R.
>       Levine/Telcordia)
> Subject:  Re: BP_Deliverable for QRT review
>
> The QR Team have agreed to comment on the document personally and informally (as
> this is not part of the formal review of this document). We understand that at
> some
> futue stage this document will be submitted for formal review and any comments
> made
> at this stage may or may not form part of that review.
>
> The comments will available at 08:00 PST on Monday 16th Oct.
>
> I hope this is useful to you
>
> "Paul R. Levine" wrote:
>
> > Tim,
> >
> > a. As we discussed on the call, this is probably not a formal QR review,
> leading
> > to a vote.  We have additional pieces to integate into it: core components and
> > TPA, but not REA as stated on my message.  Bob Haugen corrected me my via
> email
> > that REA had already been incorporated. It would not be appropriate to vote on
> > this specification until it includes core components and TPA.
> >
> > b. The primary purpose for QR review now is to confirm this specification as a
> > substantial baseline for the Tokyo PoC.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > "Tim McGrath" <tmcgrath@tedis.com.au> on 10/10/2000 01:05:57 AM
> >
> > Please respond to tmcgrath@tedis.com.au
> >
> > To:   "Paul R. Levine" <plevine@telcordia.com>
> > cc:    (bcc: Paul R. Levine/Telcordia)
> > Subject:  Re: BP_Deliverable for QRT review
> >
> > before i forward this to QR i would like to clarify a few things...
> >
> > a. does this need to be a formal QR review?  as it only comprises a portion of
> > the final document.  if we
> > were to review sub-sections they would still require to go through 2 review
> > cycles with the complete
> > document.
> >
> > b. is the purpose to fast track a specification for the PoC?  in which case we
> > would be happy to give
> > input but i don't think this needs to use a formal QR review cycle. (i shall
> > check this with the
> > executive)
> >
> > I shall be attending the BP/CC teleconference this evening maybe we could
> > discuss this after that meeting?
> >
> > Sorry for this hesitation but hopefully we can save everyone some time this
> way.
> >
> > "Paul R. Levine" wrote:
> >
> > > StC Members,
> > >
> > > Following up on the 9 Oct. BP PT conference call today, we are submitting
> the
> > > attached Technical Specification of the ebXML Metamodel, entitled "Business
> > > Process Project Team Technical Specification Document Draft Version 3.0:
> > > Collaboration Modeling Metamodel & UML Profile" specification for Quality
> > > Review.  I had previously forwarded this document through Klaus, but he
> > reminded
> > > me of the correct procedure to go through the StC.  This document is
> admitedly
> > a
> > > work in progress, but is the specification that was submitted by Edifecs to
> > > ebXML and adopted by the Delivery Team, because of quality and completeness
> of
> > > the work.  Work remaining on this specification is to enhance the modeling
> > > metamodel to include explicit Resourcs, Events, Agents (REA),  core
> components
> > > and TPA.  The reason this document is being submitted for Quality Review now
> > is
> > > the AIAG PoC proposal is based on this mature and stable metamodel and the
> > > collaborative business patterns contained in it.  The second reason is that
> > > Draft Version 2.0 of the BP PT Technical Specification Document has been
> > > superceded by this document, and thus will be "decommissioned."
> > >
> > > My apologies to those who are receiving this for the nth time.  We're still
> > > working on getting a clear path to BP and CC documents on the ebXML web
> site.
> > > Also many people on the BP call today were in need quick delivery of the
> > > document.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Paul Levine
> > > BP PT co-lead
> > > (See attached file: ebXML Collaboration Modeling Metamodel.doc)
> > >
> > >   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >                                                     Name: ebXML
> Collaboration
> > Modeling Metamodel.doc
> > >    ebXML Collaboration Modeling Metamodel.doc       Type: Microsoft Word
> > Document (application/msword)
> > >                                                 Encoding: BASE64
> > >                                              Description: Mac Word 3.0
> >
> > --
> > regards
> > tim mcgrath
> > TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
> > phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142
>
> --
> regards
> tim mcgrath
> TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
> phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142

--
regards
tim mcgrath
TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142

begin:vcard 
n:McGrath;Tim
tel;pager:+61(0)299633829
tel;cell:+61 (0)438352228
tel;fax:+61(0)893352142
tel;work:+61(0)893352228
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:tmcgrath@tedis.com.au 
x-mozilla-cpt:;-19376
fn:tim mcgrath
end:vcard