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

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Duane,

The BCM TC would be strongly interested in such analysis - and
particularly how it relates to implementing the Information Pyramid
using registry.

In BCM we've painted the big pictue - but gap analysis between
the existing OASIS components and implementing that - critical
stuff!

Thanks, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>
To: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
Cc: <ebsoa@lists.oasis-open.org>; "ebXML BP" <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: [ebsoa] Re: [ebxml-bp] eBusiness Metamodel EARLY DRAFT 0.03


> There may be no value in it.  It occurred to me that no one has done
> this work.
>
> I started in to see where it leads.  It may be valuable or yield some
> valuable lessons, or it may be a complete and incomprehensible waste of
> time.  Niemand weiss (Nobody knows).
>
> As to applicability, probably not to architecture since we have to
> architecture to compare it to (within this group).
>
> Duane
>
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>
> >I would like to please confirm - only for informational purposes, not
> >out of challenge - the value/applicability of the eBusiness Metamodel to
> >our TC's work.
> >
> >Are we looking for places where multiple TCs define the same entities
> >but with different sets of properties - and therefore where gaps exist?
> >If so, are we planning to take those recommendations back to those TCs?
> >To what degree can we (our TC) ensure that the gaps will be closed, and
> >our work therefore be more than an academic exercise?
> >
> >Also - I did not note in the metamodel where the actual TCs were listed
> >(though I can discern many of them).  It would perhaps be helpful to
> >understand whether this metamodel covers 2 ebXML TCs, 3, etc.
> >
> >Also - this is of course a bottom-up exercise. Is it better than a
> >top-down approach? Do we need that as well? If so, will the 2 approaches
> >be synchronized enough to meet in the middle?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Joe
> >
> >Duane Nickull wrote:
> >
> >
> >>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FYI - this one is a bit outdated and newer versions exist.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
> >>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>                                      Name:
ebXML-metamodel3-mm1-050404.pdf
> >>   ebXML-metamodel3-mm1-050404.pdf    Type: Acrobat (application/pdf)
> >>                                  Encoding: base64
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> -- 
> Senior Standards Strategist
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://www.adobe.com
>
>
>
>