Re: [ebxml-bp] eBusiness Metamodel EARLY DRAFT 0.03

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

Monica:

Updated with responses to your comments.

FYI - this one is a bit outdated and newer versions exist.  Your 
questions are interesting and it will be worthwhile exploring further.

Duane

Monica J. Martin wrote:

> Duane Nickull wrote:
>
>> If 1.0 is a release, ready for public draft, please consider this a 
>> 0.03.
>>
>> The purpose is to capture the state of ebXML, WS, CEFACT and 
>> requirements of business.  The concepts on this can be mapped back to 
>> the ebXML Requirements document.
>
>
> mm1: Duane, this seems to reflect functionality that does not exist or 
> is planned later in some of the technical specification development. I 
> am interested where the requirements came from and where those 
> requirements are held/defined, given the changes you have made in the 
> model.
>
>> We may not have time to discuss this in NO but it is interesting to 
>> view.
>>
>> Please note that the names of certain items do not necessarily 
>> correspond to the names of the work governing them.  For example, the 
>> OASIS CAM work MAY be potentially used as the way to constrain 
>> Business Payload Metadata. I do not make any implied warranties as to 
>> such being true or false.
>>
>> There are also several departures from existing ebXML groups.  The 
>> details for "TimeToPerform" have been  subclassed to a class of their 
>> own since they are used by the BusinessCollaboration, CPP, CPA and 
>> BusinessProcess classes.  I have added two attributes for value and 
>> qualifier (units of measure).  This is to cater to both short and 
>> long running business processes/collaborations.  We cannot always 
>> assume it would be expressed in days (not precise enough for some) or 
>> seconds (the instance values may become unmanageable if you have 
>> something that runs 7 years (220,752,000 seconds).
>
>
> mm1: If you look at the work item list for ebBP v2.0 you will find 
> that we have resolved to make TTP an element with conditionality 
> likely attached.
>
>> As per Dale's message, we may have already identified some 
>> unnecessary containership.
>> Comments, flames, suggestions, etc may be directed at me in person in 
>> new orleans.
>
>
> mm1: See comments (not flames in notes in the .pdf) for ease of 
> understanding comment to model.


-- 
Senior Standards Strategist
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://www.adobe.com

ebXML-metamodel3-mm1-050404.pdf