[ebxml-dev] Role of OAG in ebXML BP design

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

Hello all-

 

One area in which the BP team with whom I'm involved is very interested is the role of OAG (Open Applications Group) in the ebXML work efforts.  Strictly in terms of BP's, the OAGIS 8.0 release of resources and BOD schemas provides a PHENOMENAL starting point for building a frame of reference for industry collaboration.

 

The question is... How does the OAG organization (and its work efforts) semantically, bureaucratically, and technically "fit" into the ebXML definition,design and implementation?

 

Scott C. Beach
Internet Architect
Goodrich Corporation
2730 West Tyvola Road
Charlotte, NC 28217
704-423-7089 Office
704-968-1062 Cell

-----Original Message-----
From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@mmiec.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:13 PM
To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
Cc: akotok@disa.org; ebxml_go@yahoo.com; evals@xmlglobal.com; mwsachs@cyclonecommerce.com; brian.hayes@uclalumni.net; dave@collaborativedomain.com; peter.furniss@choreology.com; sanjay@bea.com; simon.nicholson@sun.com; chris.ferris@sun.com; dconnelly@openapplications.org
Subject: [ebxml-dev] Modularity (was) wrt Process Specification document

I agree with Marty but would like to expand one point.  The ebXML specifications are intended to be modular.  One of the reasons we have buy-in from a large, diverse community is our deliberate design to avoid lock-in at any layer. 

So, the CPP/A should be implementable with any business process orchestration schema that fills the logical needs of a 'process specification.'  The process specification parameter of a validly formed and binding CPA may point to a non-BPSS process.  Of course, right now, for testing and other purposes, the best fit with the published ebXML CPP/A spec naturally is the published ebXML BP spec. 

As a participant and coeditor of the BPSS v1 spec, personally I think we win on merit as well.  Our work is the best thing out there, by far, in  isomorphism to actual business needs and economic reality.  And the v2 work coming out this summer from CEFACT's ebXML BPSS and BCPMC teams will be even more robust.  (More info is available from the team leads Brian Hayes <brian.hayes@uclalumni.net> and Dave Welsh <dave@collaborativedomain.com>.)   But in the spirit of inclusiveness, I did want to make the point about modularity. 

Also, the CPP/A team is considering possible advanced work to explicitly map and list dependencies with other business process specs.   Any purveyors, or power users, of specific business process specs who find this interesting might want to explore it with CPP/A team lead Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>.

Best regards  Jamie Clark

At 05:13 AM 5/8/02, you wrote:

Shanthi,
The process specification document that the CPA references is an instance document of the ebXML Business Process Specification Schema (BPSS). The BPSS specification is available on the ebXML web site.
Regards, Marty

~ James Bryce Clark  
~ VP and General Counsel, McLure-Moynihan Inc.
~ 1 818 597 9475   jamie.clark@mmiec.com  (www.mmiec.com)
~ Chair, ABA Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic Commerce  
~ (www.abanet.org/buslaw/cyber/ecommerce/ecommerce.html)