RE: The role of context in the re-usability of Core Components andBusiness Processes - OR Say What???

["Blantz, Mary Kay" <mblantz@netfish.com>]

Hello,

No, Core Components has certainly not abandoned modeling.  If our
documents are not clear in that regard, we will fix them.  

The CC Analysis document has many more items than just 'party.'  We
only included the one example, because we were concerned that reviewers
would focus on that detail level, and not on the methodology.  It appears
that we were right to be concerned.

I hope that by now you have submitted comments on all of the CC
deliverables,
since you all have good insights and we welcome your recommendations and
support.

Thanks,
Mary Kay


-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Goatly [mailto:philip.goatly@bolero.net]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 9:59 AM
To: Andrzej Bialecki; Bob Haugen
Cc: ebXML Core
Subject: Re: The role of context in the re-usability of Core Components
andBusiness Processes - OR Say What???


Hello there,

 Well said. ebXML seems to have abandoned any modelling for core components

Cheers, Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrzej Bialecki" <abial@webgiro.com>
To: "Bob Haugen" <linkage@interaccess.com>
Cc: "ebXML Core" <ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:26 PM
Subject: RE: The role of context in the re-usability of Core Components
andBusiness Processes - OR Say What???


> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Bob Haugen wrote:
>
> > Martin Bryan:
> > >The CEN/ISSS project group on Defining and Managing Semantics and
Datatypes,
> > >at their meeting on Tuesday [...] expressed a wish that precanned sets
of business
> > >processes be made easily available to SMEs as part of off-the-shelf
office suites.
> >
> > Good!  They are correct! I hope they express their wish to the ebXML
> > steering and executive committees.
> >
> > The ccbp-analysis group has collected a catalog of common business
> > processes that would be a good starting point. The official version will
be
> > send to QR by March 19.  The catalog does not contain fleshed-out
> > business processes, it is mostly a survey and cross-reference of
> > commonly used business processes from a variety of standards
> > organizations.
>
> I was lurking on this list for some time now. Let me share with you my
> impressions about the CC (I also participated in that CEN/ISSS meeting as
> a representative of an SME).
>
> First of all, I had an impression (gotten from the "Methodology for the
> Disc. and Analysis of CC") that this group is convinced and dedicated to
> the use of UML to present models. However, from reading the final
> documents I can see it's not the case, and I can't understand why. That
> Excel spreadsheet is mighty unclear, and it looks like just a heap of
> everything and anything thrown together from various existing standards.
> The UML model recreated from this (that someone sent a week or two ago),
> seems to support this impression...
>
> Next, I thought that I perhaps missed some unofficial documents that
> present MORE of the core components than just the Party related ones. I
> was very surprised to find out that this is the only catalog of CC
> available. Where is the rest of the core components then, for those who
> want to exchange something more than the Party related information?
>
> Now, please bear with me one more moment. The SMEs, and not only, are
> waiting with great eagerness for the ebXML project to produce something
> that can be implemented, and which would ensure interoperability and lower
> costs for them to enter the e-commerce arena. Many ebXML spec drafts have
> already been used as a basis for early adopters, as well as strategic
> guidelines, but not the CC, which (as the name suggests) form the core
> needed for exchanging the business information. So, IMHO, many of these
> SMEs will be very disappointed if the CC specification will be accepted in
> its vague and incomplete form, as it basically is today.
>
> What are my expectations then? Maybe I'm just an isolated case, but I
> think that in order for this specification to be accepted and deployed,
> and if you really have the SME market in mind, these specs must be much
> more concrete. Giving too much freedom is not always good, especially for
> interoperability. They should present a consistent, well normalized model
> that is readable (i.e. a UML representation). And, they should present a
> COMPLETE model of the core components needed to perform the most common
> business exchanges, with the guidelines for extending it. Otherwise, what
> is the practical meaning of this spec if it doesn't guarantee a decent
> level of interoperability? Why should I accept this vague model (that in
> fact places on me the burden of creating my own components) instead of any
> other one (RosettaNet or xCBL comes to mind)?
>
> As a system architect for an SME, I'm certainly not going to embark on the
> ebXML adventure without much more clear and precise definitions for such
> central concepts. Which is sad, cosidering how many excellent specs this
> project already produced...
>
> Andrzej Bialecki
>
> //  <abial@webgiro.com> WebGiro AB, Sweden (http://www.webgiro.com)
> // -------------------------------------------------------------------
> // ------ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.freebsd.org --------
> // --- Small & Embedded FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ ----
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org
>


------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org