Re: minutes and call info - metamodel mtg.

[Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM <srh@us.ibm.com>]

BP/CCers,
My appologies for not being at this meeting last Monday. Here is what
is in my head on some of this. I have also copied in a reference to
discussion
on some of this we have had on the Transport/TP lists.

>We discussed BP relation to TPA. Question of 'what comes first' the BP or
the
>TPP. In all industry standard scenarios BP comes first, TPP is derived and
>augmented. In the more entrepreneurial .com world TPP's might come first,
and
>BP becomes an assembly of existing TPP's. We agreed to focus on the former
>scenarios for now. Bob pointed out that the core process work migh also
>provide a bottom-up or middle-up approach where you build bigger processes
>from core processes.

I agree there are two models. I would characterize these two models as
an "IdentifiableProcess" and a "DynamicConversation".

IdentifiableProcess:
is predefined with predefined sequencing and has a set of unique Roles
that can be played by Parties. A Party's PartyProfile can reference
the Roles it supports for a given IdentifiableProcess.
It does seem aligning a building block approach (CoreProcess) makes
sense. This is along the lines of the current MM, and should be/is the
current ebXML focus.

DynamicConversation:
This supports a model where a DyanmicConversation is started with a
fixed set of initial Parties. There is a form of understanding
of the interaction content capability for each involved Party,
but there is no predefined sequencing. I believe accomplishing
this within the fixed ebXML life is not achieveable.

>We need access to the actual .mdl model, not just the .doc
>specification document.

Agreed.

>Next meeting October 10. at 9 am PST, 12 pm EST.
>Preliminary agenda:
>.....
>Discussion of BP elements needed for TP.
>Discussion of Partner definition.
>............

Agree we need this but a focus on the PP (PartyProfile) not the
Partner/Party (which is it anyway?).
I am now thinking that there is no real "merge" of the BP MM and a PA. A PP
should be registered and reference which IndentifiableProcesses/Roles it
supports.
From there, Parties negotiate a PA (PartyAgreement) instance to support the
runtime.
[some of these terms, PP, PA, have now become firm in other groups, so lets
use them].

This week in the TP f2f we will have this discussion.  Here is a pointer to
some of the same
converstation........

http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-tp/200009/msg00090.html

Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@East.Sun.COM> on 10/08/2000 09:41:06 PM

Please respond to Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@East.Sun.COM>

To:   ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org, ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
cc:
Subject:  minutes and call info - metamodel mtg.



Minutes from Metamodel meeting 10/2/2000

Agenda:

1.   Review of context matrix, and identification of metamodel element
representing each context

2.   Discussion of plans for arriving at XML representation for business
processes defined against the metamodel

2.a. Identification of minimal required content of an XML document
representing a business process in order for it to be the functional basis
for
deriving a Trading Partner Profile (i.e. half of a Trading Partner
Agreement)

2.b. Discussion of use of XMI

3.   Feedback from last weeks walk-through of the AIAG example expressed as
a
model against the metamodel.


Attendees:

Bill McCarthy
Bob Haugen
Edwin Young
Core Casanave
Mike Rowley
Jean-Jacques Dubrais
Anne Hendry
Antoine Lonjon
Paul Levine
Stefano Pogliani
Sharon Kadlec
Tim McGrath
Karsten Riemer

We went over the table of contexts with Jim Clark's annotations of meta
model
elements. Bill McCarthy and Bob Haugen to update document with comments and
corrections, and to work with Jim Clark to update metamodel where required.

We discussed classification schemes. Reg/Rep model of a hierarchy of
classifiers and a type of relationship called classification appears to
cover
all the needs.  However, it is unclear who in BP/CC is responsible for
providing list of possible values for these classifiers. Sharon said that
this
was up to trade/industry bodies. But we at least need examples.

We discussed XML formats. Antoine had been working on conversion to XMI of
example activity diagram and sequence diagram. Antoine sent the resulting
XMI
to the ccbp-context list. These XMI documents will be discussed at
Tuesday's
meatamodel meeting. There was a comment that perhaps the recommended XML
format is a TA issue. Antoine will contact Duane.

Sharon asked whether ebXML would/should provide stylesheets to convert the
contents of a BP model to html. Group agreed that that is not in scope for
BP
team. However, we will see what  Sig Handelman and POC comes up with.

We discussed BP relation to TPA. Question of 'what comes first' the BP or
the
TPP. In all industry standard scenarios BP comes first, TPP is derived and
augmented. In the more entrepreneurial .com world TPP's might come first,
and
BP becomes an assembly of existing TPP's. We agreed to focus on the former
scenarios for now. Bob pointed out that the core process work migh also
provide a bottom-up or middle-up approach where you build bigger processes
from core processes.

We solicited feedback on last week's review of AIAG example. None offered.
Karsten to schedule to schedule the review of the FSV layer. We need access
to
the actual .mdl model, not just the .doc specification document.

Next meeting October 10. at 9 am PST, 12 pm EST.

Preliminary agenda:
Review of XMI documents.
Attempt to settle on XML format for POC.
Discussion of BP elements needed for TP.
Discussion of Partner definition.
Scheduling of FSV review.
Process for review of metamodel.

To access the call, dial 888-699-0348 domestically and +1 732-336-6000
internationally, with  a PIN of 8955#.