RE: TP requirements specification

[Tony Weida <TonyW@EDIFECS.COM>]

Scott,

I'm copying the BP team to let them know that we're discussing our alignment
with BP terminology.

To the extent that BP terminology might evolve in the future, it's certainly
true that the TP team can't finalize our alignment with that terminology.
If our terms align with current BP usage, that's the best we can do for now.
In any case, we will still benefit greatly from starting with a simple,
clear, consistent set of terms within our team as we finalize our
requirements document and develop the PP and PA specs.

From the standpoints of simplicity, clarity, and consistency, I certainly
hope that BP terminology in XML will not diverge needlessly from the UML
terminology.

Thanks,
Tony Weida
Edifecs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM [mailto:srh@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 11:08 AM
> To: Tony Weida
> Cc: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: RE: TP requirements specification
>
>
> 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
> > ******************************************************************
> > *******************
> >
> >
>
>