RE: TP requirements specification

[Tony Weida <TonyW@EDIFECS.COM>]

I propose that we refer to the interaction among partners in terms of a
(business) collaboration protocol instead of, rather than in addition to, a
(business) collaboration process.  There are at least three good reasons for
doing so: consistency with the ebXML metamodel, clarity of expression, and
emphasis on the independence of each partner's own processes.  In more
detail:

1. Consistency with the ebXML Metamodel -- The metamodel is already
specified in terms of a business collaboration protocol among business
processes.  It is crucial that we all use the same terms for the same
things.  See "Collaboration Modeling Metamodel & UML Profile" at:

	 http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/business_process/wip/

Please note that this document supersedes the earlier drafts entitled "ebXML
Business Process Metamodel".

2. Clarity -- Rather than overloading the term "process" by using it
ubiquitously, we make a clear distinction by using "process" only for that
which occurs within a partner's system, and "protocol" only for that which
occurs across partners' systems.

3. Emphasis -- In general, partners will independently implement their own
processes that interact at specific points with other partners.  By
referring to that interaction strictly in terms of a collaboration protocol,
we emphasize the independent nature of the processes carried out by each
partner.

Respectfully,
Tony Weida

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 4:43 PM
> To: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: TP requirements specification
>
>
> I have attached the latest version of the TP Requirements specification.
> Most of the changes are attributable to the discussion in the October 4
> conference call.
>
> The changes are highlighted in yellow.  (I started by using
> revision markup
> but it kept getting in the way of some of the things I was doing,
> particularly with regard to list structures.  So I turned off markup,
> removed the markup that I had already put in, and used the highlighter
> instead.)
>
> I ran out of runway without doing the suggested changes to the
> requirements
> list formats.  If anyone wants to try this, have at it.  To avoid multiple
> efforts, I nominate David Burdett.  HOWEVER, since it may be necessary to
> convert this document to the canonical ebXML format, I suggest
> not touching
> the list formats now. Let's wait to see if we have to convert the format
> and, if so, fixing the lists at the same time.
>
> If anyone knows whether we will have to convert to ebXML format, please
> post a reply to the list.  Lets, however, not do anything about it until
> after the face to face.
>
>
> Regards,
> Marty
>
>
>
>
> (See attached file: partner-requirements.doc)
>
> ******************************************************************
> *******************
>
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
> ******************************************************************
> *******************
>
>