RE: Example Scenarios Used Within the Aerospace Industry

[Todd Boyle <tboyle@rosehill.net>]

David Welsh said,

> In ebXML, when you get down to the lower level of the UMM BP metamodel, 
> a BP also specifies which 'payload' details need to handled. 'payoads' 
> can be CC or traditional EDI or ... They are all 'payloads' of business 
> information to support the BP. Further my take is CC will become more 
> 'efficient payloads' to support a modeled BP.
> 
> > In other words, the BP layers under construction should
> > conform with existing vocabulary which is being implemented
> > within the business document level.  Does the BP layer require
> > changes in the party.details, quantity.type, identifier.type, etc.
> > in the CC excel spreadsheet?
> 
> To be clear, BP drives the need(s) for payloads (details) to support the 
> collaborating BP; along with other technical transport criteria --
> 'reliable messaging required', or .... So I think you mean it's the 
> other way round re. 'conformance' !

That is marvellous if Transport and BP and other workgroups decided 
they can support trad edi payloads.  I suppose that's easier for
them to say, than the guys who will have to work with both types of
payload data as a result.

Anyway.  I am talking about business documents in XML, with tags 
that have a one-to-one identity with ebXML core components for 
things like party, postal address, code, identifier --the 
components in the excel spreadsheet.

Regardless of the UMM BP metamodel, SMEs are going to require a 
single model for things like the postal address, party details,
etc.  

Whereever multiple information models of party and location etc. 
exist at different levels of the ebXML stack, pointing at the
same underlying entities, they need to be converged, fast.  This
allows SMEs to go forward with freestanding bus. documents today,
without disrupting their software later when sections of their 
information are handled separately by a different level of the 
ebXML stack.

So like I said, if the party.details or quantity.type or anything
else in the CC Structure.XLS are not what the UML requires then
you can save us all a lot of pain, by pointing it out now! The
registry of CCs is the dictionary of record.  SMEs are going to 
use it in 2Q 2001 regardless of the pace of BP or TP etc. What else
are we supposed to do?  Go sign up for a MS passport and bcentral??
Respectfully,
Todd

(It is time for my approximately annual disclaimer, that I
don't have any portfolio to speak for SMEs and don't know all 
the answers.  But I'm still right!  <grin>)