Re: Common Business Objects

["Paul R. Levine" <plevine@telcordia.com>]

It's time to stop disputing whether we are dealing with CBOs or CCs.  We must
recognize that both exist, they are both significant to on- going work, and they
are in alignment.  The alignment has been explained well by Mike Adcock in his
2000-08-01 paper entitled "Core Component."  He said "individual core compoents
will be general match the 'data list' part of Common Business Objects (CBOs).
Context will also be defined by the business process model (BPM) which defines
the instancees in which the Common Business Object (and hence the matching Core
Component) occurs."  The concept of specializing CBOs to be business objects and
core components to be 'smart core components' according to the context
determined from the BPM is the same.  The centrality of CBOs to a UML BPM is
fundamental with many organizations I'm familiar with, i.e., UN/CEFACT, ITU,
ANSI T1, TM Forum, S.W.I.F.T., GCI.  This cannot be ignored by ebXML if we want
our work to be interoperable with other bodies.  We have an opportunity to show
the relationship between CBOs and CCs, and some of us ebXMLers in the UN/CEFACT
TMWG are proposing to revise the N090 UMM document to show this relationship up
front.  An ebXML Repository that will accommodate UML BPMs must necessarily
accommodate CBOs as well as CCs that relate to the CBOs.  One other thought:
don't be afraid of receiving a virus from an object.  Business objects aren't
sent or received, just information about them!

Regards,

Paul




"Lisa M. Shreve" <lms@wwnet.com> on 09/12/2000 09:20:59 AM

Please respond to lms@wwnet.com

To:   Mary Kay Blantz <mblantz@LTVSteel.com>, ebxml-stc
      <ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org>
cc:    (bcc: Paul R. Levine/Telcordia)
Subject:  Re: Common Business Objects




Rachel,

I think you are missing the point here.  The CC PT, which is made up of
the largest concentration of Business experts represented in ebXML,
plus, significant representation from the vendor community [IBM,
CommerceOne, Oracle, Sun, etc.], says that Core Components are not
objects because they do not have behaviors. The project team has
provided on a number of occasions descriptions about the truely
innovative approach CC has taken to solving this difficult problem.

The business community in ebXML is becoming increasingly frustrated with
the ebXML steering committee because they are not being heard.  They are
not being listened to.

Industry and vendor lead initiatives, which continue to be started even
today, are defining proprietary XML solutions which undermine the
business communities ability to achieve interoperability.

This is to the detriment of the business community.

And the ebXML leadership continues to argue over Common Business
Objects.

What has to happen in order for this to be resolved?

Cheers,

Lisa M. Shreve & Mary Kay Blantz, CC PT co-Leaders

Rachel Foerster wrote:

>  Lisa,I don't agreement with this statement of yours: "In the eyes of
> the business community, receiving an object would be equivalent to
> receiving a virus.  Obviously, this would not be desirable!"Component
> architectures AND distributed object computing are clearly and
> unequivocably where IT is going - and it's picking up speed. XML
> provides a clear capability for an entity to contain nonparsed data
> (From XML V1.0: An unparsed entity is a resource whose contents may or
> may not be text, and if text, may not be XML. Each unparsed entity has
> an associated notation, identified by name. Beyond a requirement that
> an XML processor make the identifiers for the entity and notation
> available to the application, XML places no constraints on the
> contents of unparsed entities.) Thus, it is clear that the developers
> of XML intended to provide the capability for non-textual data to be
> conveyed. This would, of course, include objects and by extension,
> common business objects.In my opinion it would be a major omission if
> the ebXML Framework specifications did not include a common set of
> objects. I believe you are mistaken in your assumption that the
> business community assumes that all objects are viruses. For ebXML to
> proceed under this assumption would not be good, and is ultimately in
> conflict with the concept of distributed object computing. I can
> certainly envision the need to be able to use an XML document to
> contain an object that would interact with another object on the
> receiver's side. ebXML simply cannot afford to not enable this
> capability with its framework specification.Hopefully you and the CC
> PT members will recognize the value of this concept and modify your
> thinking to accommodate it.Rachel
>
>      -----Original Message-----
>      From: Lisa M. Shreve [mailto:lms@wwnet.com]
>      Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 4:03 PM
>      To: Nieman, Scott
>      Cc: 'mblantz@LTVSteel.com'; ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org
>      Subject: Common Business Objects
>      Scott,
>
>      Thank you for distributing the updated r&r document, I'm
>      sure Mary Kay is pleased with your prompt response.
>
>      Frankly, I am stunned that it still contains references to
>      common business objects!  We have been discussing this since
>      May, and I thought that this had been resolved.  Apparently
>      not.  Let me start with:
>
>
>           It is the opinion of the Core Components Project Team,
>           which consists of 60 members and is the largest project
>           team in ebXML, that CBO's are not what we are
>           producing. Core Components, referred sometimes to Smart
>           Core Components, take on specific meanings, elements
>           and refinements, based on Context [such as industry,
>           geographic region, product type, etc.]  The sensitivity
>           to context makes the Core Components smart.  Core
>           Components do not have behaviors, which is why these
>           are not objects.  In the eyes of the business
>           community, receiving an object would be equivalent to
>           receiving a virus.  Obviously, this would not be
>           desirable!
>
>
>      Core Components are specifically designed to meet the PT's
>      cross industry interoperability goals of Electronic
>      Commerce.  These requirements are driving the need for the
>      use of context and extension methodology, combined with the
>      core.  This maximizes our opportunity for reuse, and
>      supports the need for concise and semantically significant
>      content.
>
>      With us now in the delivery phase, we cannot afford to
>      continue to argue the PT's overall approach. We did an hour
>      presentation in Brussels, we presented jointly with the BP
>      project team at the San Jose closing plenary, we have
>      answered this question on numerous occasions.  What steps do
>      we need to take to bring closure to this issue?
>
>      Thank you,
>
>      lms
>
>
>
>      Nieman, Scott wrote:
>
>     > here you go:
>     >
>     > http://www.e
>     > xml.org/project_teams/registry/private/P1Comments.html
>     >
>     > Scott
>     >
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: mblantz@LTVSteel.com [mailto:mblantz@LTVSteel.com]
>     > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 1:08 PM
>     > To: ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org
>     > Subject: Re: UDDI, ebXML, and ecoFramework
>     >
>     > Mike,
>     >
>     > Much as I would like you to have the last word, I must ask
>     > a question.
>     >
>     > You indicated a knowledge of the R&R that is more than I
>     > know.  I trust you
>     > have found the documentation somewhere.
>     >
>     > Please share.
>     >
>     > Mary Kay
>     >
>     > Mike Rawlins <rawlins@metronet.com> on 09/08/2000 01:37:39
>     > PM
>     >
>     > Please respond to rawlins@metronet.com
>     >
>     > To:   ebxml-stc <ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org>
>     > cc:    (bcc: Mary K Blantz/CLGO/LTV)
>     > Subject:  Re: UDDI, ebXML, and ecoFramework
>     >
>     > Rik,
>     >
>     > Since only you and I seem to care much about this ;^), and
>     > we've both stated
>     > our
>     > opinions, I don't see much to be gained by continuing this
>     > dialogue.
>     > However,
>     > I'm sure you'll agree with me that there's a big
>     > difference between the BP
>     > metamodel using parts of the eCo framework, and ebXML
>     > adopting it wholesale
>     > with
>     > all of its interfaces, schemas, and implementation
>     > details.   Those are
>     > beyond
>     > the scope of the BP work.  They also don't fall within
>     > R&R, since R&R is
>     > only
>     > working on means to host any generic artifact, and not
>     > working on the
>     > details of
>     > the kinds of TP information needed for discovery.  The
>     > details of trading
>     > partner discovery logically fall within the responsibility
>     > of the TP team,
>     > but
>     > that team has not yet even reached a consensus that
>     > trading partner
>     > discovery is
>     > within its scope.  In fact, the last time it was discussed
>     > the consensus was
>     > that discovery was *not* within the team's scope.
>     >
>     > So, there you have it.  You going to give me the last
>     > word???  Have a good
>     > weekend.
>     >
>     > Mike
>     >
>     > rik drummond wrote:
>     >
>     > > since it specified layer i would say it means uses.....
>     > best regards, rik
>     > >
>     > > -----Original Message-----
>     > > From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
>     > > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 12:07 PM
>     > > To: ebxml-stc
>     > > Subject: Re: UDDI, ebXML, and ecoFramework
>     > >
>     > > Thanks, Rik, but there are only two specific references
>     > to eCO in the BP
>     > > metamodel document v2.
>     > > They say:
>     > >
>     > > 126 -129
>     > >
>     > > 2. Markets and Parties
>     > > This is the part of the model that allows organizations
>     > to register
>     > > themselves relative to the markets they perform in and
>     > the types of
>     > services
>     > > they offer. This aligns with the first four of the seven
>     > layers of the eCO
>     > > framework.
>     > >
>     > > 679 - 680 "an eCO style self-registration on your own
>     > site might be
>     > > workable'"
>     > >
>     > > I assume that the first reference is the most
>     > significant.  I'm not
>     > familiar
>     > > enough with eCo or the BP work effort to know whether
>     > "aligns" means just
>     > > "corresponds to" or "is based on".  In either case, I
>     > still think that
>     > > making a generalization about planning to use eCo is
>     > still an
>     > overstatement.
>     > >
>     > > rik drummond wrote:
>     > >
>     > > > mike the references are in the bp documents.... and
>     > were there before we
>     > > > read them at the tmwg meeting.... rik
>     > > >
>     > > > -----Original Message-----
>     > > > From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
>     > > > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 11:02 AM
>     > > > To: ebxml-stc
>     > > > Subject: re: UDDI, ebXML, and ecoFramework
>     > > >
>     > > > All,
>     > > >
>     > > > I appreciate Klaus' prompt action in addressing the
>     > issues UDDI raises
>     > > > with his note yesterday.  However, I think that
>     > there's a
>     > > > misrepresentation in that our plans for using the eCo
>     > Framework were
>     > > > stated in a stronger fashion than they actually are.
>     > To my knowledge,
>     > > > no team has yet developed or approved at the team
>     > level even high level,
>     > > > informal requirements for trading partner discovery,
>     > much less come out
>     > > > with a firm position that we plan to use a specific
>     > approach such as
>     > > > eCo.  It is certainly the opinion of several of us
>     > that ebXML will end
>     > > > up specifying eCo, but giving the impression now that
>     > ebXML has already
>     > > > made that decision is premature and inaccurate.  Such
>     > representations
>     > > > can only have negative consequences, and I request
>     > that Klaus and the
>     > > > rest of the Executive Committee be a little more
>     > careful in the future
>     > > > with their statements about such technical matters.
>     > > >
>     > > > Regards,
>     > > > --
>     > > > Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
>     > > > http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/
>     > >
>     > > --
>     > > Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
>     > > http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/
>     >
>     > --
>     > Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
>     > http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/
>
>
>



Rachel,

I think you are missing the point here.  The CC PT, which is made up of the largest concentration of Business experts represented in ebXML, plus, significant representation from the vendor community [IBM, CommerceOne, Oracle, Sun, etc.], says that Core Components are not objects because they do not have behaviors. The project team has provided on a number of occasions descriptions about the truely innovative approach CC has taken to solving this difficult problem.

The business community in ebXML is becoming increasingly frustrated with the ebXML steering committee because they are not being heard.  They are not being listened to.

Industry and vendor lead initiatives, which continue to be started even today, are defining proprietary XML solutions which undermine the business communities ability to achieve interoperability.

This is to the detriment of the business community.

And the ebXML leadership continues to argue over Common Business Objects.

What has to happen in order for this to be resolved?

Cheers,

Lisa M. Shreve & Mary Kay Blantz, CC PT co-Leaders

Rachel Foerster wrote:

 Lisa,I don't agreement with this statement of yours: "In the eyes of the business community, receiving an object would be equivalent to receiving a virus.  Obviously, this would not be desirable!"Component architectures AND distributed object computing are clearly and unequivocably where IT is going - and it's picking up speed. XML provides a clear capability for an entity to contain nonparsed data (From XML V1.0: An unparsed entity is a resource whose contents may or may not be text, and if text, may not be XML. Each unparsed entity has an associated notation, identified by name. Beyond a requirement that an XML processor make the identifiers for the entity and notation available to the application, XML places no constraints on the contents of unparsed entities.) Thus, it is clear that the developers of XML intended to provide the capability for non-textual data to be conveyed. This would, of course, include objects and by extension, common business objects.In my opinion it would be a major omission if the ebXML Framework specifications did not include a common set of objects. I believe you are mistaken in your assumption that the business community assumes that all objects are viruses. For ebXML to proceed under this assumption would not be good, and is ultimately in conflict with the concept of distributed object computing. I can certainly envision the need to be able to use an XML document to contain an object that would interact with another object on the receiver's side. ebXML simply cannot afford to not enable this capability with its framework specification.Hopefully you and the CC PT members will recognize the value of this concept and modify your thinking to accommodate it.Rachel  

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa M. Shreve [mailto:lms@wwnet.com]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 4:03 PM
To: Nieman, Scott
Cc: 'mblantz@LTVSteel.com'; ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Common Business Objects

Scott,

Thank you for distributing the updated r&r document, I'm sure Mary Kay is pleased with your prompt response.

Frankly, I am stunned that it still contains references to common business objects!  We have been discussing this since May, and I thought that this had been resolved.  Apparently not.  Let me start with:
 

It is the opinion of the Core Components Project Team, which consists of 60 members and is the largest project team in ebXML, that CBO's are not what we are producing. Core Components, referred sometimes to Smart Core Components, take on specific meanings, elements and refinements, based on Context [such as industry, geographic region, product type, etc.]  The sensitivity to context makes the Core Components smart.  Core Components do not have behaviors, which is why these are not objects.  In the eyes of the business community, receiving an object would be equivalent to receiving a virus.  Obviously, this would not be desirable!
 

Core Components are specifically designed to meet the PT's cross industry interoperability goals of Electronic Commerce.  These requirements are driving the need for the use of context and extension methodology, combined with the core.  This maximizes our opportunity for reuse, and supports the need for concise and semantically significant content.

With us now in the delivery phase, we cannot afford to continue to argue the PT's overall approach. We did an hour presentation in Brussels, we presented jointly with the BP project team at the San Jose closing plenary, we have answered this question on numerous occasions.  What steps do we need to take to bring closure to this issue?

Thank you,

lms
 
 

Nieman, Scott wrote:

here you go:

http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/registry/private/P1Comments.html

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: mblantz@LTVSteel.com [mailto:mblantz@LTVSteel.com]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 1:08 PM
To: ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: UDDI, ebXML, and ecoFramework

Mike,

Much as I would like you to have the last word, I must ask a question.

You indicated a knowledge of the R&R that is more than I know.  I trust you
have found the documentation somewhere.

Please share.

Mary Kay

Mike Rawlins <rawlins@metronet.com> on 09/08/2000 01:37:39 PM

Please respond to rawlins@metronet.com

To:   ebxml-stc <ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org>
cc:    (bcc: Mary K Blantz/CLGO/LTV)
Subject:  Re: UDDI, ebXML, and ecoFramework

Rik,

Since only you and I seem to care much about this ;^), and we've both stated
our
opinions, I don't see much to be gained by continuing this dialogue.
However,
I'm sure you'll agree with me that there's a big difference between the BP
metamodel using parts of the eCo framework, and ebXML adopting it wholesale
with
all of its interfaces, schemas, and implementation details.   Those are
beyond
the scope of the BP work.  They also don't fall within R&R, since R&R is
only
working on means to host any generic artifact, and not working on the
details of
the kinds of TP information needed for discovery.  The details of trading
partner discovery logically fall within the responsibility of the TP team,
but
that team has not yet even reached a consensus that trading partner
discovery is
within its scope.  In fact, the last time it was discussed the consensus was
that discovery was *not* within the team's scope.

So, there you have it.  You going to give me the last word???  Have a good
weekend.

Mike

rik drummond wrote:

> since it specified layer i would say it means uses..... best regards, rik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 12:07 PM
> To: ebxml-stc
> Subject: Re: UDDI, ebXML, and ecoFramework
>
> Thanks, Rik, but there are only two specific references to eCO in the BP
> metamodel document v2.
> They say:
>
> 126 -129
>
> 2. Markets and Parties
> This is the part of the model that allows organizations to register
> themselves relative to the markets they perform in and the types of
services
> they offer. This aligns with the first four of the seven layers of the eCO
> framework.
>
> 679 - 680 "an eCO style self-registration on your own site might be
> workable'"
>
> I assume that the first reference is the most significant.  I'm not
familiar
> enough with eCo or the BP work effort to know whether "aligns" means just
> "corresponds to" or "is based on".  In either case, I still think that
> making a generalization about planning to use eCo is still an
overstatement.
>
> rik drummond wrote:
>
> > mike the references are in the bp documents.... and were there before we
> > read them at the tmwg meeting.... rik
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 11:02 AM
> > To: ebxml-stc
> > Subject: re: UDDI, ebXML, and ecoFramework
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I appreciate Klaus' prompt action in addressing the issues UDDI raises
> > with his note yesterday.  However, I think that there's a
> > misrepresentation in that our plans for using the eCo Framework were
> > stated in a stronger fashion than they actually are.   To my knowledge,
> > no team has yet developed or approved at the team level even high level,
> > informal requirements for trading partner discovery, much less come out
> > with a firm position that we plan to use a specific approach such as
> > eCo.  It is certainly the opinion of several of us that ebXML will end
> > up specifying eCo, but giving the impression now that ebXML has already
> > made that decision is premature and inaccurate.  Such representations
> > can only have negative consequences, and I request that Klaus and the
> > rest of the Executive Committee be a little more careful in the future
> > with their statements about such technical matters.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
> > http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/
>
> --
> Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
> http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/

--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/