More on [BSR] and the Problems of Using a Dictionary-based Approachto Defining Business Semantics

["William J. Kammerer" <wkammerer@foresightcorp.com>]

At the CEN/ISSS EC Workshop Meeting, 13 & 14 March, in London, a paper
was prepared by the DAMSAD Project Group as a problem statement
regarding the ebXML Core Components model, entitled - appropriately
enough -"The Problems of Using a Dictionary-based Approach to Defining
Business Semantics."  More information on the Workshop Meeting is at
http://www.cenorm.be/isss/Workshop/ec/News/News.htm.

Incendiary quotes abound, like:

"The ebXML initiative has heavily promoted the benefits of formally
modelling business processes, using the Unified Modeling Language (UML),
yet the core components defined for use within messages have not been
formally modelled. As a result they, like all preceding dictionary-based
approaches, fail to define easily reusable or extensible data types."

"At present the ebXML Core Component team are only seeking to create a
dictionary of semantic definitions. They are not formally modelling
classes, or seeking to make the names of their properties reusable in
different contexts. They are using a limited set of representation
types, which have not been formally defined and for which no mechanisms
for identifying context-dependent subsets have been provided."

This sounds just like it came out of the mouth of Martin Bryan, or
perhaps Mike Conroy.  My questions, assuming ebXML Core Components
doesn't just adopt xCBL wholesale, are: 1) will ebXML CC heed these
DAMSAD observations, and 2) though François Vuilleumier, the ISO/TC154
chair, has assured us that - in so many words - the ISO BSR is not
"dead," aren't the same criticisms applicable to the BSR?

William J. Kammerer
FORESIGHT Corp.
4950 Blazer Pkwy.
Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
+1 614 791-1600

Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
"accelerating time-to-trade"