Re: [ebxml-bp] ebBP 11/29/2005: IHE Integration Profiles throughebBP...(Files Updated)

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

Asuman,
We are encouraged seeing the user guide for the ebBP Editor you have 
created. It is generic enough that many user communities could use it. I 
believe that coupled with an ebBP primer (springboarding off the spec 
packages and Sally St. Amand's in-progress FAQ) would be quite 
beneficial to the community.  I've already received inquiries. The 
primer will enable user communities to understand, use and apply (as 
well as adoption) ebBP v2.0.1.  It would be quite beneficial if you, 
your team and interested parties could attend an upcoming meeting to 
discuss your efforts, the editor and the profile. [1] We could discuss 
in the TC the primer concept.

In addition, I have had time to review the User Guide, and have several 
comment and questions:

   1. Please provide more details on Business Transaction specialization
      you reference.  There are two important aspects of this (at a
      minimum) to discuss:
          * Leveraging the template of BT patterns and operational
            semantics: When you start with a BT pattern, there are many
            related profile selections made by collaborating parties or
            business partners: Document Security, quality of service,
            non-repudiation of receipt and content, use of which
            business signals (including user-defined types), etc.
            Template=>profile of pattern and semantics that meet the
            parties expectations.
          * Leveraging a BT pattern to specialize it via the Data
            Exchange Element: This is a subtle comment related to the
            intent and definition of the concretized BT patterns
            themselves, and how they can be leveraged. Let me explain.
            Select the Business Transaction Type of Commercial
            Transaction. It requires a Request and a Response. Consider
            hypothetically that consenting parties determine they do not
            need a Response in a specific circumstance.  They could take
            the Commercial Transaction pattern and constructs, using the
            Data Exchange Element. And, define the semantics and
            structure of their business transaction. Rather it is a
            user-defined pattern using the Data Excchange element rather
            than a specialization of the Commercial Transaction itself.
            The difference is subtle. The BT patterns are based on the
            patterns defined in the UMM, for international trade (and
            based on defined intentional assumptions). Their concretized
            structure and the minimum set of business and operational
            semantics should be maintained. The BT pattern of which it
            is based and the specialized BT can be associated.
   2. Visualization of a process definition: Have you considered using
      BPMN? We've used this standard process notation to visually
      represent our processes in the technical specification. BPMN v1.0
      is found at
      www.bpmn.org:http://www.bpmn.org/Documents/BPMN%20V1-0%20May%203%202004.pdf,
      and v1.1 (working draft):
      http://www.bpmn.org/Documents/BPMN%201-X.pdf. This would promote a
      common notation in visualizing these processes (for process objects).
   3. For example for Join, can you please explain intent of simple
      content, global content and global scope selections? Note, some of
      this may be due to note seeing other than screen shots of the
      Editor. Does this relate to the actual type of element or
      attribute, and what constraints/parameters are applied to its use
      in the schema?
   4. Top-down or bottom-up or in between: The audience and users
      involved may have preferences of construction for a process
      definition (termed a profile instance grouped by actors in your
      work). For example, in the UBL case for UK local government they
      are developing modular process definitions that can be composed
      [i.e. BT and BTA and/or CBTA that could be later used in a BC and
      then BC within BC (CA)]. Others may bound the Business
      Collaboration by function based on broad domain assumptions (such
      as all Order processing involves a known set of entities) and then
      work out the BT used.  The continuum is supported in ebBP and
      communicating this is important in understanding the standard and
      the use of the Editor. Therefore, in early in the introduction it
      may be well-served to describe these concepts and the target
      audiences. This will provide some needed context related to area
      of interest and work  - it could also be tied to a Primer and, as
      it develops, the ebBP IIC profile.  
   5. Roles: Ports and roles? Ports may or may not be defined at the
      point the process definition is created. If a CPP/A is used, a
      port or delivery channel may be defined and would be associated
      with the business transaction characteristics of the process
      definition used. Some may assume this is a WSDL port (i.e. web
      services) and this may or may not apply....even though you can
      attach an abstract operation in WSDL to a BTA (an option not a
      requirement) in ebBP.
   6. Abstract partners and the roles they assume: The business partner
      (exposed as an abstract partner) can assume many roles. Must show
      that the role is not static as related to a partner. Concentrate
      on the entity and then the roles assumed (current or performed).
      This will encourage the intent in the specification and the
      representation in the Editor are consistent.
   7. Annotations and domain-specific ontology: Can you explain this in
      more detail - is this selecting values or adding values to the
      specification schema or creating/extending your own? How are the
      annotations attached to the elements you describe for the BT?
      These would be points to discuss with the TC (assuming you visit
      us which would be quite helpful).
   8. Use of XInclude: Can only import Package using XInclude. Dale can
      provide details. Description exists in the specification.
   9. What aspects of ebBP are yet to be enabled in the Editor?

Again, Asuman we are very appreciative of your work and look forward to 
our continued collaboration. Thank you.

[1] Meetings are typically scheduled 9 a.m. PST each Tuesday.

>> mm1: See this progress with health care in using ebBP for electronic 
>> health records.
>>   1. ebBP IHE Profile (draft):
>
> mm2: Updated: 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-bp/document.php?document_id=15657 
>
>
>>   2. ebBP Editor User's Guide (draft):
>
> mm2: Updated: 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-bp/document.php?document_id=15658 
>
>
>> mm1: This is an important development to promote adoption of ebBP. 
>> What is of particular interest here is:
>>
>>   1. Leveraging registry/repository
>>   2. Exercising the v2.0.1 advanced features
>>   3. The draft editor under development
>>   4. The importance of the patterns and semantic information in this
>>      domain (which are core capabilities in ebBP)
>>
>> I encourage your comments particularly on Asuman's questions and my 
>> responses.  Their needs and questions are similar to those we have 
>> received from local UK government and textiles. 
>