Re: terminology alignment

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

Karsten,

I am running out of time for the version that I have to submit to the next
public review cycle.  I need to be done by the close of business tomorrow.
If I run out of time, I will have to make these changes later in the month
but they will be done before Vienna.

I have a few replies embedded below,

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



Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com> on 04/18/2001 03:32:04 PM

Please respond to Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com>

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org, ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  terminology alignment



Marty,
Pardon my tardyness with these comments.
I was on vacation, and came home to an issues list of my own to address :-)

Here is a small set of terminology issues that should be addressed between
the
CPP/CPA and BP Specification Schema documents: (based on revision 0.93 -
apologies if you have already addressed some of these issues)

1. Wherever you refer to an instance of the BP Specification Schema, please
refer to as a "Business-Process-Specification", not just a
"Process-Specification", including in figures.

MWS:  "Process Specification" came from the root element of the XML
document
the last time I looked. If the root element is now
BusinessProcessSpecification,
I will change it but that will almost certainly push it out beyond tomorrow
since it will require a change to an element name, which will require work
on the part of my XSD expert.

2. Please change your internal reference to the BP Specification Schema
document from [BPMSPEC] to [BPSS] or if you prefer [BPSPEC]. The 'M' is
likely
a left over reference to 'modeling' and is a source of much confusion (BPSS
vs. UMM etc.)

MWS:  The reference is now [ebBPSS] per orders from QR.

3. On figure 1. replace "Business Collaboration Protocol" with just
"Business
Collaboration" or "BinaryCollaboration", depending on how generic/specific
you
prefer the figure to be. The phrase "Business Collaboration Protocol" is a
UMM
term, not an ebXML term.

4. I think you can replace the words "Collaborative Process" with "Business
Collaboration" everywhere (this change is a suggestion only). It would just
make it easier to map between the two documents, since "Collaborative
Process"
is not a known term within BPSS (or UMM).

5. In lines 151, 435, and possibly elsewhere, I also recommend changing the
phrase "Business Process" to "Business Collaboration". Parties support
interaction through "Business Collaborations", not "Business Processes".

6. The term "action" in an override element is ambigous, it is unclear
whether
it refers to a BusinessTransaction, or to a BusinessDocument (or something
else). In either case, we should not have a uniqueness issue.
BusinessTransactions and BusinessDocuments are unique within their package.
(See note about packages below).

MWS: This has been an open issue for several months.  The override should
refer
to a specific message definition within a specific business transaction,
i.e. to
the request or the response.  As I recall, we did not know how to express
that
reference.  It would be very helpful if you and Chris could sit down to
figure
this out.

Finally, an issue that may be more than terminology:

line 698: .... following sources in the Business Process Specification
[BPSS]
that is referenced by the (Business)ProcessSpecification element depending
upon which element is the "root" (highest order) of the process referenced.

It is unclear if this is "root" in an xml sense, or "root" in a hierarchy
of
BinaryCollaborations. In either case we may have a problem in that role
names
are not required to be unique within a Business Process Specification. You
need to qualify the role reference like BinaryCollaboration/Role or
BinaryCollaboration/BusinessTransactionActivity/Role BinaryCollaboration
names
are unique within a package. Package is a UML based mechanism for
namespaces.
A BusinessProcessSpecification may have several packages within it.

MWS:  Yesterday, Chris posted changes in this area which may satisfy this
comment.
Please review his posting and let me know if there is anything more needed.

-karsten