Re: [wsbpel] Liaison Activity - WAS: [wsbpel] CEFACT Liaison Review

[Sid Askary <saskary@nuperus.com>]

Diane,

I appreciate your unbiased approach and for clarification on the process
regarding the liaison activity.  I was attempting to respond to a
question posted by Frank.  For some reason, the good professor's
email was not included in the chain (a common occurrence given the lack
of temporal precedence in an asynchronous means of communication). 
Included below for clarity:

.....
 ...and in addition, what is the difference between liason and
observer?
Tx...

Regards,
Frank
.......

I was under the impression that he was curious as to our understanding of
the two terms.  I simply offered mine.

Now, to the topic at hand.  Since we now know about how the process
is suppose to work, can we put it to use?  I, too, would like for us
to visit our liaison activity and decide as group.  Further, I have
posted my concerns on a response to our good friend Tony.  I am also
including them here for clarity:

-------
Dear Tony,

Thank you for your kind clarification.  I was indeed referring to
the working groups - and not the specifications themselves.  I also
appreciate that you offer your statement of support for our W3C liaison
activity - although I did not question that activity.  Further, my
general point was not so much that we would benefit from such an activity
(any benefit, I hope, would be mutual to both organizations), rather, I
was referring to our W3C liaison activity as building a case for what we
could consider relevant - on the "degree of relevance" scale -
to the task at hand. 
 
I also appreciate your insight for anticipating the need for liaison
activity with future BPSS activities.  And it is precisely, in light
of current announcement, that our liaison activities are the topic of
discussion.   
 
Additionally, you cite UN/CEFACT as representing a "wealth of
experience in business matters".  Again, that organization's
credentials is not the topic of discussion - I have had direct contact
with many competent individuals who were/are participants and I hold them
in high regard.  Rather, it is the "degree of relevance"
and a matter of "priorities" given the early stages of our
TC.
 
Let me use an analogy.  Imagine that we are witness to the early
stages of an effort.  A group of auto manufacturers and designers
have come together to specify a common description of "Engine
Building" (with all due respect to colleagues at AIAG).  Other
"Engine Building" organizations - maybe aircraft - would
qualify as having pertinent input into the common language, as they are
in the business of building engines as well.  

So, the original "car Engine" team establishes a liaison with
the "aircraft Engine" group (they already have something
similar going on with submarine builders who are also working on
submersible "Engine Building" specification). 
 
While still in the early stages of their work, at some point in near
future, the "aircraft engine" manufactures decide to abandon
work on "Engine Building" specification and concentrate on a
different area - let's say "interior cabin" design
specification.  Almost simultaneously, a group of "jet
engine" designers who had worked on that original 
"Aircraft Engine" specification wants to continue the work on
"Engine Building" specification under a boat builders
association (not to mention the fact that boat and the auto team are
sister organizations belonging to a parent builder
association).     

For car "Engine Building" specification team, WHICH
ORGANIZATION should have priority in terms of visibility and mutual
cooperation - given the problem domain and expertise and organizational
affiliation:  The boat "Engine Building" spec team or the
aircraft "Interior Cabin" spec team?
 
One is either in the business of creating "Engine Building"
specification, or is an end user of such specification - not direct
participants via liaison.  Therefore, it stands to reason that by
their very nature, end user organizations are deemed less relevant for
the IMMIDIATE task at hand and are lower on the chronological priority
list (one would hope) of those from whom one wishes to solicit input and
cooperation.    
 
When, as a TC, we are close to the finish line, we could revisit the end
user direct liaison issue, perhaps, in a marketing sub-group.  
To be sure, there are precedents where other organizations abandon an
effort in favor of supporting another - towards the completion cycle -
and generally, such gestures are delivered through the parent
organization (i.e. Rosettanet in case of OASIS).   

Lastly, to further the analogy, there are still more relevant groups and
consortia in the "Building Engine" specification arena (i.e.
B_ig P_arts M_anufacturer I_nstitute) with which one could consider
liaison activity in order to further enhance the work product.

In fact, it it common practice to re-visit these "Relations" as
unforeseen events occur.  I think, as a TC, we need to revisit our
liaison priorities, given the recent changes.  

 
Regards, 
Sid Askary
-----

At 09:22 AM 9/23/2003, Diane Jordan wrote:

> The term 
> observer doesn't apply in this context.  Anyone acting as liaison
> for our TC must be a member of our TC and should also be a member of the
> other group.   
>
> Any liaison must be approved (or rejected) by the full
> TC.   So far we have approved liaisons with W3C Choreography
> and CEFACT BPWG and discussed several others as
> possibilities.   Members of the TC who believe liaisons with
> other groups are appropriate should bring those suggestions to the TC for
> consideration.  The TC will decide whether they are
> appropriate.  There is no definition of "normative" that
> I've seen.  I trust we will all use good sense and only suggest
> liaisons with relevant groups. 
>
> The liaison relationships that have been established are
> expressly to ensure communications between the groups.   Any
> further action that the liaison wishes to see occur with a group must be
> brought to the full TC for consideration.  This would include many
> of those activities you describe.   
>
> As I indicated in my note yesterday, the TC was made aware
> of  the CEFACT BCF work both via email and in discussion at the
> meeting prior to the vote which resulted in establishing a liaison. 
>  
> You might be interested in reviewing the Oasis process for
> liaisons: (Sorry, can't seem to find a link to it.) 
>
> Regards, Diane
> IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies
> drj@us.ibm.com
> (919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123
>
>
>
> Sid Askary <saskary@nuperus.com>
>
> 09/22/2003 09:25 PM         
>         To:        "Frank Leymann" <LEY1@de.ibm.com>, David RR Webber - XML ebusiness <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>, "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com> 
>         cc:        "'BPEL OASIS'" <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> 
>         Subject:        [wsbpel] Liaison Activity - WAS: [wsbpel] CEFACT Liaison Review 
>
>
>
> As of today, there are 2 other general-purpose business process 
> definition/choreography
> languages under consideration in a standards body:  BPSS in OASIS and WSCI 
> in W3C.  For
> the near term, these and the associated underlying standards on which each 
> is dependant
> should be part of the liaison activity.  Everything else is non-normative 
> and perhaps
> out of scope for this group.
>
> As for the difference between Liaison and Observer, I would say that in the 
> former,
> there is a great deal more cross-pollination and active engagement (in the 
> form of
> normative bi-directional presentations and mutual consideration, specific 
> approaches,
> etc.).  The purpose of this activity, in many cases, is the avoidance of 
> the invention
> of the perennial wheel.
>
> While in the later, there is, at best, a one-way channel for allowing 
> information
> gathering by one party.  No feedback mechanism is deemed necessary.
>
> My 0.02$
>
> Sid Askary
>
> At 10:30 AM 9/22/2003, David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote:
> >Martin,
> >
> >CEFACT has launched a completely new direction, and
> >made press releases, and made decision vis their
> >relationship with OASIS  - since we made our decision.
> >They have also had a Plenary meeting in Seoul, and
> >more changes and items occurred there as well.  The
> >bases have been moved.
> >
> >I think if we had known about these at the time - we would
> >have deferred our decision until we had a better
> >understanding.
> >
> >Essentially we made our decision in the dark - and we
> >now need to re-visit in the light of these events over the
> >last few weeks.
> >
> >Thanks, DW.
> >======================================================
> >Message text written by "Martin Chapman"
> > >
> >David,
> >
> >For those of us not closely connected with CEFACT, could you tell us what
> >these unforeseen events are?
> >Otherwise I'm not sure I have enough information at hand to decide
> >accordingly.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >  Martin.<
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of 
> >the OASIS TC), go to 
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.