RE: [ebxml-dev] Toolkits for BP Modelling

["Beach, Scott" <Scott.Beach@goodrich.com>]

Thanks Hima!

-----Original Message-----
From: Himagiri(Hima) Mukkamala [mailto:himagiri@sybase.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 11:16 AM
To: Beach, Scott
Cc: 'ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org'
Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] Toolkits for BP Modelling


Hi Scott,

First the vendor plug ---

    Sybase Power Designer provides "Business Process Modeling"
capabilities and generates a BPSS instance document (XML) compliant with
the accepted BPSS v1.01 specification.

http://www.sybase.com/products/enterprisemodeling/powerdesigner

--- End vendor plug----

Other vendor, that I know, providing a very good BPM tool is
Mega...

http://www.mega.com/us/home/index.asp

You can contact me if you need more details.

thanks
-hima

"Beach, Scott" wrote:

> Hello all-
>
> I'm curious as to what tools people have found useful for capturing
Business
> Processes in UML and exporting them to XML so they may be added to the
> Registry/Repository.  The BP documentation makes mention of web-based
forms
> for entering business processes and tools for developing UML.  While I'm
> familiar with the major UML toolkit providers, I'd love to know what
> products you've found excel in ebXML-specific implementations so that our
> organization can recommend and utilize the best solution.
>
> -Scott Beach
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bhaugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 2:04 PM
> To: Jean-Jacques Dubray; 'Nandini Ektare'
> Cc: 'ebxml org'; 'Hayes, Brian'; 'Malu, Pallavi G'; 'LONJON Antoine'
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] <BinaryCollaboration> in eBPSS
>
> From: Jean-Jacques Dubray
> > You are raising an important issue, which I think can only be resolved
> > if we either make the notification failure part of the business
> > transaction protocol rather than a separate business transaction as it
> > is today, or by making an explicit notification of success (either
> with
> > a separate business transaction, or as a timeout). I personally favor
> > the former solution.
>
> I think success can be discerned reliably from
> the transaction protocol without a separate notification.
> Failure could be more problematic, especially
> where the last acknowledgment does not arrive
> due to technical difficulties.
>
> In RosettaNet, the precursor to the BPSS
> transaction protocol, Notification of Failure
> is a separate transaction that is required
> in many PIPs (Partner Interface Processes).
>
> My understanding is that RNet went over all
> the design alternatives we may consider here,
> and selected a separate-but-required transaction
> because it may need to go via completely
> different delivery mechanisms.
>
> In other words, if the end state of the transaction
> is not aligned properly because of a technical
> failure on the last acknowledgment, another
> notification using the same mechanism
> will most likely fail, too.
>
> -Bob Haugen