One critical aspect addressed by the UMM, which is not
addressed by RUP or OAG/MDA, is the collaborative execution of business. The
UMM provides key infrastructure for looking at collaborative business state
management, especially with the close incorporation of REA.
Without UMM there is a big hole in the organization of
business requirements for execution over a distributed set of participants.
The orchestration mechanisms being developed today do not provide any
infrastructure for evaluating business executability at the macro level, but
instead only at the micro level.
This once again leads to (non-UMM) software/service devlopers
"interpreting" the business intent, instead of (UMM) being able to directly
evaluate business integrety at the macro level (BRV) and conformance of the
service implementation to those requirements.
We must make progress on the REA, BET, and BCP deliverables so
that the layering of business execution on top of service orchestration is
direct, distributed, and measurable.
The CCTS and especially the CCUG made a very good
start and expressing how the BET discovery in the BRV phase leads to increased
quality in the CC models.
I look at UMM as a business modeling extension that can be
applied to both RUP and OAG/MDA.
Thanks,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@yellowdragonsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 3:35 AM
To: UN/CEFACT Core Component WG
Cc: klausn@attglobal.net; ch@mminf.univie.ac.at;
kenji.itoh@jastpro.or.jp
Subject: Re: CCWG in the next TMG meeting
Mark:
I fully agree with your statement. We recently completed an entire
project using Core Components and BIE's without ever using the UMM. In
fact, we found UMM to be a complete emcubrance for the actual CCTS
implementation work.
Where UMM did provide very valuable help however, was to ensure that all
the stakeholder's needs for the final project were represented. Without
UMM, there was a very high likelyhood that we may have neglected a
crucial BIE that would have rendered the project invalid.
I also wish to point out that at runtime, the software does not care (or
cannot even determine) if UMM as used, therefore, I assert that for
software architects, UMM is highly irrelevant at runtime. It is very
valuable however for planning an architecture and developing the
messages that will ultimately ensure success within the end implmentation.
It was also clear that jus using plain common sense works just as well.
Another alternative that I am becoming a big fan of is the Rose Unified
Process (now owned by IBM). I think there is a lot of merit to
investigating RUP as an alternative to UMM. Another one is the OMG's
MDA!!!
Before the flames begin, please do not intepret my mesage to be anti
UMM. I like the whole idea of model driven architecture.
Duane Nickull
(Speaking completely unencumbered by the potential for email flames
derived fromthe preceding statement)
;-)
CRAWFORD, Mark wrote:
>Hisano,
>
>Clearly there is a need for the ccsd to align with UMM. The UMM
users
>guide should also align with ccts. CCTS and UMM should be
complimentary, but not necessarily aligned as CCTS can be used without UMM
outside of CEFACT. I would think it is not a question of which was first, but
a question of what is best to support using both CCTS and UMM by TBG.
>Mark Crawford
>Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
>W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative
>Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC & Chair Naming and Design Rules
Subcommittee
>Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group
>Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components
>______
>Logistics Management Institute
>2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805
>(703) 917-7177 Fax (703) 917-7481
>Wireless (703) 655-4810
>mcrawford@lmi.org
>http://www.lmi.org
>"Opportunity is what you make of it"
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sugamata <hsedi@attglobal.net>
>To: UN/CEFACT Core Component WG
<uncefact-tmg-ccwg@listman.disa.org>
>CC: uncefact-tmg-ccwg@listman.disa.org
><uncefact-tmg-ccwg@listman.disa.org>; klausn@attglobal.net
<klausn@attglobal.net>; ch@mminf.univie.ac.at
<ch@mminf.univie.ac.at>; kenji.itoh@jastpro.or.jp
<kenji.itoh@jastpro.or.jp>
>Sent: Sat Nov 01 01:49:53 2003
>Subject: CCWG in the next TMG meeting
>
>Hi Mary Kay,
>I'm wondering the CCWG/CCSD works within the TMG.
>The current CCTS and CC User's guide are challenged by UMM group.
They
>are claiming CCTS and CC User's guide are inconsistent with the UMM
>Usres Guide which were introduced after CCTS and CC User's guide. Are
>their any who will fight back to their claim ?
>
>Are there any CCWG/CCSD meetings within the next TMG meeting in
>December ? I'm ready to join the CCWG meeting in the next TMG if it
>will be held.
>
>Regards.
>
>----------------------------------------------
>Hisanao Sugamata
> ECOM:
> Electronic Commerce Promotion Council of Japan
> TEL +81-3-3436-7568 FAX +81-3-3436-7570
> URL:
http://www.ecom.or.jp
>----------------------------------------------