Re: [ebxml-bp] XSD schema for OASIS BPSS

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

David RR Webber wrote:

> Webber: The second comes down to visualization support.  I realized when
> I did the OAG AutoTech scenarios - that BPSS is good for the
> big picture - but when you need to dynamically draw linkages
> and flows - it has less support in the XML right now.  You can
> fudge it - but for endusers - you need to be specific explicit
> constraints.
>  
> Monica - I think I need to open an issue and lead it for this:
>  
> "Enhanced support for explicit flow pattern logic and visualization" -
>  
> right now this is implied - but we need more to cover off user
> interfaces being able to express it.  The bottom line is that UML was
> intended to be the answer here - but its not - and so now we need
> to add some semantics to the BPSS XML to make sure diagramming
> tools have all that is needed.
>  

mm1: Dave, this item of primary importance is the control flow, as 
Martin, Dale and JJ have indicated. We appreciate your interest in the 
context (and where you believe CAM could fit) and visualization.  We've 
already added the context tracking and now the visualization request for 
consideration. Let's concentrate on BPSS key functions first.

> Thanks, DW.
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* martin.me.roberts@bt.com <mailto:martin.me.roberts@bt.com>
>     *To:* ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org
>     <mailto:ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
>     *Sent:* Monday, November 24, 2003 5:14 AM
>     *Subject:* RE: [ebxml-bp] XSD schema for OASIS BPSS
>
>     Dear all,
>
>         I have not been taking part in the calls as I have other
>     commitments that mean that 9pm calls are just not a good one for
>     me.  However I though you might like to get some feedback on how
>     our use of the BPSS has been going.
>
>     We have had some interesting developments that have changed our
>     response to the BPSS.
>
>     1) we found that customers do not seem to like to work with the
>     activity diagrams. Even though the ones we put out were accurate,
>     someone else was asked to explain them in more detail and
>     subsequently issued a document with scenarios in that were far
>     more restrictive that they should have been.
>
>     2) we find that the state for the Gateway is actually managed in
>     most part by a CRM system. This has two problems,
>
>     a) the state models implemented in these systems is often not
>     geared to a neat public/private split and therefore the CRM user
>     feel free to move business objects to states even if these are not
>     supposed to happen. (some of this is because we have automation
>     robots hook of the CRM platform and these need to have states set
>     before they run. Any failures mean that the states have to be
>     reset and this is reflected to the customer!)
>
>     b) The steps for the gateway need to be easily identifiable, and
>     this is proving very difficult as we find that development issues
>     creep in that mean that the main headline state is not the only
>     item being monitored and this leads to lots of confusion.
>
>     c) the need to be able to cope in the BPSS with transactions being
>     performed through other channels. This is a really major issue.
>     The implications are that the state of one partners system can get
>     out of step legitimately. When modeling this you find that you
>     need to run this transaction over the gateway in reverse. For
>     example, customer places order via phone. This would normally have
>     come over the gateway, so the customers System may now does not
>     reflect this. So instead of order coming from customer, a
>     transaction needs to be enacted that get the customers order back
>     on to their systems.
>
>     The consequences of some of this are that we have ended up
>     resorting to simple message in and outbox type transactions on our
>     gateway and using the BPSS only as a documentation tool expressing
>     the ideal process.
>
>     With item c) above I think this shoul dbe addressed by the team as
>     without it you are saying that the BPSS only really works in a
>     pure environment which is not very reflective of real life.
>
>      
>      
>
>     /Martin Roberts/
>     xml designer,
>     BT Exact
>     *e-mail:* martin.me.roberts@bt.com
>     *tel:* +44(0) 1473 609785  _clickdial_
>     <http://clickdial.bt.co.uk/clickdial?001609785.cld>
>     *fax:* +44(0) 1473 609834
>     *Intranet Site :*http://twiki.btlabs.bt.co.uk/twiki
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         *From:* David RR Webber [mailto:david@drrw.info]
>         *Sent:* 24 November 2003 05:02
>         *To:* BPSS ebXML
>         *Subject:* [ebxml-bp] XSD schema for OASIS BPSS
>
>         Monica / Dale,
>          
>         Where are we in planning to publish a draft schema?
>          
>         I'd very much like to have a new schema available to the team
>         internally at least from Kavi - for testing and development
>         purposes.
>          
>         I think this will also help alot with issue diagnosis et al.
>          
>         Thoughts on a plan?  Can we discuss this on today's call?
>          
>         Thanks, DW
>