RE: TP requirements specification

[Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM <srh@us.ibm.com>]

Tony,
I agree that terminology is important to be consistent. We have had alot
of trouble with communication.

However, my current view would be that we flatten the terms *after* the BP
team
decides the content, terminology, and semantics at the BP XML layer
rather than align now to what is in the UML layer.
The XML layer is far from decided and there are those of us that view it
as a common layer that should be explored for what it contains.

Thoughts anyone?

Thanks,
Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



Tony Weida <TonyW@EDIFECS.COM> on 10/09/2000 05:11:28 PM

To:   ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
cc:
Subject:  RE: TP requirements specification



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
> ******************************************************************
> *******************
>
>