RE: minutes and call info - metamodel mtg.

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

Stefano,
>Scott,
>    if I understand it correctly, the "IdentifiableProcess" approach is
the top-down approach where you >first draw the Business Process and, then,
you derive the PPs from it.

Almost. But I would say not "then, you derive the PPs from it", but
"then, Parties can update their PPs to indicate which Roles they support in
the new IdentifiableProcess".

>If my understanding is correct:
>    - would a "One-to-One" exchange between two partners be a BP?
>    - in a more sophisticated BP, which involves more partners and more
steps,
>      could I (in a first approximation) consider the BP as a collection
of
>      PAs ?
>/Stefano

A would think that under this model, a "one-to-one" exchange between two
Parties would indeed be an IdentifiableProcess. This model, the predefined
process, is built on the foundation that in order to indicate support from
a Party,
the process has to be understood and have identity, simple or complex.

It would be closer to my view to say that you could consider *an instance*
of the BP as a collection of PAs,
but this is yet insuffiently detailed. We will need to come to terms with
the model of PAs
across a multi-Roled process, and where it's entirety links together.

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



"Stefano POGLIANI" <stefano.pogliani@sun.com> on 10/09/2000 09:22:12 AM

Please respond to <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>

To:   Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "Karsten Riemer"
      <Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com>
cc:   <ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org>, <ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org>
Subject:  RE: minutes and call info - metamodel mtg.



Scott,
     if I understand it correctly, the "IdentifiableProcess" approach is
the top-down approach where you first draw the Business Process and, then,
you derive the PPs from it.

If my understanding is correct:
     - would a "One-to-One" exchange between two partners be a BP?
     - in a more sophisticated BP, which involves more partners and more
steps,
       could I (in a first approximation) consider the BP as a collection
of
       PAs ?

/Stefano

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM [mailto:srh@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 4:02 PM
> To: Karsten Riemer
> Cc: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
> 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)
> 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#.
>
>
>
>