RE: initial draft of CPP-CPA Specification

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

In my earlier comment about the BP model going beyond the collaboration
protocol, I may have misspoke when I said that I thought the BP model is
the entire application design (at some level of abstraction).  However once
you introduce economic events, you are going higher up into the application
than the current definition of transitions which, if I recall correctly,
limits transitions to what is indicated at the end of a business
transaction (mainly success or failure or just "finished").

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

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
*************************************************************************************



Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com> on 01/23/2001 10:24:16 AM

To:   "'Stefano POGLIANI'" <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>, Martin W
      Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   "ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>
Subject:  RE: initial draft of CPP-CPA Specification




> The full BP metamodel contains some "economic elements"
> based on Bill McCarthy's REA ontology that will allow trading
> partners to use things like orders and fulfillments
> in a generic way.  For example, it is important in a collaboration
> model to determine when important business events can be
> recognized - e.g. orders accepted and receipts confirmed.
> You can't necessarily tell just from single business document.
> Those recognized events can also be the hooks for sending
> the ebXML  documents to the internal business apps.
>

<Stefano Pogliani>
     Exactly.
     In a Business Process Modelling way, this would correspond
     to the logic evaluating the transition to a new state.
</Stefano Pogliani>

Yes - an economic element of the collaboration changes its state,
and that may also be a signal to an EAI software layer to send
something to the internal business app.

> For example, if I send you a purchase order request and
> you reject it, we may not want it to go into either of our
> internal business apps.  Likewise an Advanced Shipping
> Notice that is not confirmed by my receiving people.

<Stefano Pogliani>
     I am not sure I am buying it completely.
     What you say would imply that the "middleware" would
     be intelligent enough to decide that it is not worth
     to bother the legacy.
     I would like to have this, though (as written in my paper)
</Stefano Pogliani>

My focus here is recognition of economic events
from legal and accounting viewpoints.  For example,
when ownership of an economic resource changes hands
is part of the public logic of the collaboration.  Likewise
the rules for when contractual agreements have been
formed.  So it's not like the collaboration software
decides to bother the legacy system, it's more like
some EAI layer can use these recognition events
as hooks.

Jamie Clark of the ABA will have a lunch-and-learn in
Vancouver about legal ramifications of ebXML business
collaborations.  I plan to attend and take notes.

Regards,
Bob Haugen