Re: [ebxml-bp] Transaction Model

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

martin.me.roberts@bt.com wrote:

>JJ,
>  I agree with the sentiment of looking beyond the borders of UMM,  however the use of the interchange patterns that were there put a useful set of constraints on the work and enabled some measure of rigour that might not have been there.  It is the patterns that have caused the most interest from our internal people as we try to standardise the ineractions within our organisation.
> 
>Ther are some small exceptional use cases that we would like to see included, mainly to prevent the default of a pair of back to back notifications.  I certainly do not think we need to have the 6 patterns of before, for example specialising two or three patterns through parameters would have been easier to explain to people.  the differences between the Request/Confirm and the Request/Response is very subtle.
> 
>So where does that leave us.  I feel that settling this would enable the rest to fit into place.  Therefore my question could be re cast as what interaction patterns are we planning to use?
>  
>
mm1: Martin, the list of most relevant elements to look at in the 
context of a metamodel summary included the primary concepts we 
understand from the UMM including the transaction patterns. I agree with 
you there were valuable.  Could you further expand your thoughts on 
combining the patterns with specialization or parameters. This may be 
valuable input to the group and to John's work on the metamodel summary. 
Thanks.

> 
>Thanks
> 
>Martin
>
>	-----Original Message----- 
>	From: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:jeanjadu@Attachmate.com] 
>	Sent: Wed 10/12/2003 22:08 
>	To: Roberts,MME,Martin,XSG3 R; ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org 
>	Cc: 
>	Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] Transaction Model
>	
>	
>
>	Martin: 
>
>	Would not there be an opportunity to expand and go beyond these patterns? 
>
>	In the past, because we had to be tied to UMM, we could not process an issue raised by someone (I am actually wondering if it was not you), explaining that the current concept of Business Transaction might be a bit to rigid.
>
>	What do you think? 
>
>
>	Jean-Jacques 
>	tel: 425-649-6584 
>	Cell: 508-333-7634 
>
>	-----Original Message----- 
>	From: martin.me.roberts@bt.com [mailto:martin.me.roberts@bt.com] 
>	Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 12:35 PM 
>	To: ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org 
>	Subject: [ebxml-bp] Transaction Model 
>
>	Hi,  A long time since I have been able to monitor this list so this might seem like a simple question I should knopw about.
>
>	he goes - what is the transaction or exchange model that is that basis for this work.  Are the patterns of exchange in UMM 10 still the basis?
>
>	Martin 
>
>  
>