[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] Toolkits for BP Modelling
Scott, You may also want to have a look at Bind Systems' BindStudio modeling tool (www.bindsys.com). -Dieter Jenz Beach, Scott wrote: >Thanks Hima! > >-----Original Message----- >From: Himagiri(Hima) Mukkamala [mailto:email@example.com] >Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 11:16 AM >To: Beach, Scott >Cc: 'firstname.lastname@example.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:email@example.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 >> > -- Jenz & Partner GmbH Hainstr. 40a 63526 Erlensee, Germany Phone: +49-6183-9100-11 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.jenzundpartner.de This electronic message contains information from Jenz & Partner which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above) immediately.
Powered by eList eXpress LLC