[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: minutes and call info - metamodel mtg.
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) firstname.lastname@example.org, 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: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.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#.
Powered by eList eXpress LLC