Hi, I have snipped a little of the headers to save
endless scrolling to read my latest comments.
regards,
Tim
No
problem, but since we're talking about 'architecture' etc., I would like to
raise a question about templates which has been at the back of my mind
recently.
Is it
possible that different templates (maybe similar, but refined), would be
developed by & for business specific purposes? I raise this question
because it seems like a possible scenario, given that we have been
developing templates for the generic (or widest accepted) usage. Just as
with the reference data - we started off just with the most generic stuff
required to support a capability, but now we have bus. specific ref.data. If
bus. specific concerns can generate new/refined templates, then acc. to
fig1, this would probably require a new capability.
If
your current fig1 below is correct, then this would somehow feedback to the
capabilities in general & the exsting templates. However, if somehow the
templates were managed separately from the capability, then different
templates could be 'plugged-in' to support the different bus.concepts &
ref.data. This might then reduce the number of escalating capabilities
required and even consolidate some where there is already considerable
overlap. If the Dexs had the ability to act as a configuration mechanism (as
they do now for capabilities) they might also specify
which templates (assuming several valid for each cap) are to be
usedwithin a data exchange contract.
[RBN]
Don't quite understand what you mean by feedback. The business concepts are
in affect the definition of a mapping from a business construct to PCLS
entities. This mapping is expressed via templates. The templates are defined
within a capability as they are expressing how to use a subset of the
information model of a capability.
[Tim
Turner] Changing
a template as a result of a business concept requirement would (acc. to your
existing diagram below) require a change to the capability's use of the
same template. Just as you mention above, it's an interpretation of
the capability's info model. However, what is the relationship between a
template defined purely for the generic capability and one which is
defined through a business concept? If one is based upon the other,
how do we show that? I think there are, or will be a need for both and we'll
need to re-jig the figure to accomodate this
aspect.
RBN2]
No - the template is "used" - not "defined" in the business concepts
[Tim Turner] See my last
comment below.
Irrespectively of
this waffle, I would suggest that your fig might use the term DEC (Data
Exchange Contract) rather than overload DEX.
[RBN]
I would rather not introduce yt more terms (which is why I tried to
understand if a data exchange contract had anything more than a business
DEX)
[Tim
Turner] Your figure
labels a Business DEX as a Data Exchange Agreement. Previously, they were
called contracts. I don't know when the name
changed.
RBN2]
If it is a DEX - lets call it a DEX
[Tim Turner] I have not
been present during some of the recent meetings, but from the definition you
repeat below (which 'identifies' the Dex to be used / refered to in a contract)
I cannot quite see how you arrived at "Once I looked into this
I felt that it was really a dex defined using business concepts". This justification sounds like a re-write of a Dex acc. to a
business terms rather than a mapping of the business concepts to those provided
in the Dex.
Your good effort on manufacturer_item shows exactly how some
business requirements can be mapped to the template suggested for parts. This
business requirement representation and concept mapping are precisely what needs
to go into the contract. The contract may just reference the relevant Dex
specification (my preference) or include it in an Annex (versioned copy of..).
However, I don't think that this justifies calling the contract a
Dex.
I
believe that moving away from the standard Dex term is a dangerous one, as
this will confuse just about everyone. If it is a contract - lets
call it one!
:-)
Also,
I'd perhaps suggest that a business concept is not defined_by a
capability. The business concept can be exchanged 'in the context of' a
specified capability. It is actually the bus.concept which defines the
context (through the ref data and mapping) in which the capability is used.
(I think this is what led me to thinking about templates specific
for a particular type of bus.concept...)
[RBN]
I'm not sure that I agree. Take a look at the manufacturers_item example.
I think that it is important that a business concept is defined by
templates that are within the capabilities. The reason being is that as far
as possible we want to have a consistent interpretation of the PLCS model.
That is why we have capabilities and
templates.
[Tim
Turner] In
this sentence you say that each bus. concept must be defined by templates
within a capability. I think that each capability should have a slot for
a template, (else we may have to develop new capabilities for each bus.
usage). By default, the generic one is used unless a business concept defines
another (for use within a defined Business Dex). The alternate may be (should
be?) based upon the original/default template. The manufacturers_item example
provides one view of a template defined in the context of TLSS. I can easily
imagine another project might define something similar, but different for
their project, based upon other business concepts. Which of these two
should go into C002? Or should there be a generic one by
default?
RBN2]
I absolutely agree that a template should be defined in a capability and that
all capabilities should define temapltes. The opnly reason why there is a
template defined in Manufactures-Item is that the required template
"representing_part" had not been defined in the capability representing part.
I thought that I had made this clear in my email about manufacturers item
(which is why I send you the VISIO for representing part) - sorry I was
obviously not clear enough.
[Tim Turner] I am not
talking about where the suggested template for representing parts is
currently stored. I'm talking about the fact that for some business users, there
are occaisions when a template as defined by a certain capability may not
be sufficient. E.g. specifying a particular subset of reference data for
part_identification_code; such as setting the organization id to always be
'XYZ' etc.,. For these occaisions we may need to either modify the original
template in the capability, create & manage a new template or just leave it
as is (not recommended). The point is that we have not identified a process to
deal with this issue & the resolution of it may impact the architecture
figure.
regards, Tim
-----Original
Message----- From: Rob
Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] Sent: 31 August 2005
12:35 To: 'Tim Turner';
plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: 'Martin Gibson'; 'Phil
Rutland' Subject: RE:
[plcs-dex] Business concepts
Hi
I
confess - I was a bit hasty in sending out the diagram.
I
meant to explain that we previously talked about "Data exchange contracts"
but never really defined them beyond:
Identify the DEX and
its version
Identify the
relevant conformance class (documented in the DEX)
Identify business
concepts (which again refer to business specific sets of reference data)
Reference data
library / ref data sources
Bounding scope of
reference data
Data representation
rules and constraints (for data validation)
Explanation of how
that information is represented is defined in the capabilities
Once
I looked into this I felt that it was really a dex defined using business
concepts. Hence the suggestion that it should be referred to as a
"Business DEX". What else would go into an exchange contract (apart from
the legal / service / availability / liability aspects) and do we want to
provide that in DEXlib?
I
agree with you Tim, that a Business DEX should use the same XML as a PLCS
DEX.
However, a PLCS
DEX refers to the PLCS activity model. A Business DEX, might
not.
I
need to look into the impact of using the DEX XML to represent Business
DEXs.
In
the meantime, here is an updated diagram reflecting the comments so
far.
BTW
- so far nobody has said they preferred the original diagram, so I will
make the change in the help files (we can modify this as a result of any
further discussion)
-----Original
Message----- From: Tim
Turner [mailto:tjt@lsc.co.uk] Sent: 31 August 2005
16:41 To:
'rob.bodington@eurostep.com'; plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: 'Martin Gibson'; 'Phil
Rutland' Subject: RE:
[plcs-dex] Business concepts
I
had not heard of business dex before. However, in our context I can
see it might be useful.
However, I don't
know that a Dex is defined by business concepts (fig2). I'd suggest that
they use business concepts. Also, I'd presume that they may be based upon
a PLCS Dex. In fact, both should be based upon the PLCS Dex
template.
How
will Dexlib differentiate between these two types of
Dexs though?
-----Original
Message----- From: Rob
Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] Sent: 31 August 2005
08:46 To:
plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: 'Martin Gibson'; 'Phil
Rutland' Subject: RE:
[plcs-dex] Business concepts
Hi
In
the proposed diagram, I should probably include Templates in a
capability.
Also, The
Business DEXs that are arguably the same as a Data exchange agreement-
though a data exchange agreement may well have additional legal
information.
There perhaps
should also be a relationship between a "Business DEX" to a "PLCS DEX"
indicating that the Business DEX conforms to the PLCS
DEX.
-----Original
Message----- From: Rob
Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] Sent: 31 August 2005
13:21 To:
plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: 'Martin Gibson'; 'Phil
Rutland' Subject: RE:
[plcs-dex] Business concepts
Hi
I
have also attempted to refine the diagram that shows the relationship
between the DEXS, business concept, ref data etc.
If
everyone agrees, I would like to replace the following figure in
Introduction with the diagram below
-----Original
Message----- From: Rob
Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] Sent: 31 August 2005
12:01 To:
plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: Martin Gibson; Phil
Rutland Subject:
[plcs-dex] Business concepts
Hi
I have now
completed the changes to the business concepts.
Basically, a
business concept must be defined within a context.
This has meant
a fair amount of change to DEXlib XSL. If you find that anything does
not work, please tell me.
Details on how
to create a business concept are provided in the "Developing a
Business concept" help pages. This also explains the new business
concept directory structure. If this does not make sense, then let me
know, or propose some changes.
I
have also provided a section in the "Introduction" help pages that
describes business concepts. Whilst I was at it, I "improved"
the section describing
reference data. See what you think.
If anyone has
been developing business concepts, please contact me about migrating the
old business concepts to the new.
I have deleted
the existing business concept directories:
dexlib/data/busconcept/allowance_parts_list
dexlib/data/busconcept/bc_template
dexlib/data/busconcept/identify_a_part_and_its_constituent_parts
dexlib/data/busconcept/manufacturers_item
Let me know if
these should e retained.
I have created
one example context TLSS and defined a single business concept within
it: "manufacturers_item"
Regards Rob
------------------------------------------- Rob
Bodington Eurostep Limited Web Page: http://www.eurostep.com
http://www.share-a-space.com Email:
Rob.Bodington@eurostep.com Phone: +44 (0)1454 270030 Mobile: +44
(0)7796 176 401
DISCLAIMER:
***SECURITY LABEL: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED*** The information in this
message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended
solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is
unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken
by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please
immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error.
This e-mail originates from LSC Group. Registered in England & Wales
No 2275471 Registered Office: Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport,
Plymouth, PL1 4SG
DISCLAIMER:
***SECURITY LABEL: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED*** The information in this
message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely
for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If
you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution
of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you
have received this message in error. This e-mail originates from LSC Group.
Registered in England & Wales No 2275471 Registered Office: Devonport
Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1 4SG
DISCLAIMER: ***SECURITY LABEL: NOT PROTECTIVELY
MARKED*** The information in this message is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by
anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission
taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please
immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error.
This e-mail originates from LSC Group. Registered in England & Wales No
2275471 Registered Office: Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1
4SG
DISCLAIMER: ***SECURITY LABEL: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED*** The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. This e-mail originates from LSC Group. Registered in England & Wales No 2275471 Registered Office: Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1 4SG
|