Re: [ebxml-bp] ActionItem: Potential Expressive Shortcomings in Roleinformation within current BPSS approach

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

>> Moberg: BPSS and Business Process Role
>>       Polyadicity
>> Polyadicity is the property of how many relata are in a relation. The 
>> current treatment of business process deals with only abstracted 
>> business relations. For example, in a concrete selling relation such 
>> as “selling,” there are typically more kinds of things being related 
>> than just a buyer and a seller. There is a product or service being 
>> purchased and there is some arrangement made for something to be 
>> received in exchange for the product or service (a payment, for 
>> example). [Otherwise we might have a hard time distinguishing 
>> “selling” from “giving”.] UMM inspired business process models so far 
>> do not capture cleanly these richer business process relational 
>> descriptions, but that is not necessarily a shortcoming.
>
> Tell: Im not sure I follow you here. UMM is in fact one of few 
> electronic collaboration frameworks outside research labs that 
> actually *in* the framework has support for business semantics such as 
> selling and giving, its simple REA. Selling - money for goods, Giving 
> - only money or goods in one direction.
> In most other frameworks the business come into play by *usage* of the 
> framework.
>
>> Moberg:  Cardinality
>> Finally, and less critically, there is at present no indication of 
>> how many occupants there are for a role, or that occupants are 
>> entering or exiting.
>
> Tell: This is indeed interesting area for a business collaboration 
> framework. Personally I prefer to talk about :
> * specification- someone has authored a description of a Business Service 

mm1: Business process description.

> * capability - a party has expressed that party business syste kan 
> handle certain b.transactions (type level) 

mm1: Isn't this expressed in the party's CPP or a CPA template prior to 
any negotiation?

> * capacity - ontop of having the capability a party may also express 
> that the party has the capacity to use/utilize the capability in 
> certain ways (instance level). ex: 6 simultanous enactments, only 
> during office hours,...

mm1: Perhaps Dale can answer if this is applicable after the CPA 
negotiation occurs. I am not sure.

> /anders
>