Re: Hardin (ebBP) 3/7/2005: Conversations in the context ofebBP-CPA-ebMS

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

john c hardin wrote:

> Yes, absolutely. Actually today and all week, I am making notes for 
> submission to the group re: the next steps to take with the Technical 
> Architecture document.
>
> The link between the Reg-MS-CAP-BP execution layers is very crucial 
> for the next generation of completely distributed, loosely-coupled 
> apps. Public / Private processes are targeted for my personal goals. I 
> want to enable the entire network, with interlocking, but independent 
> processes.
>
> The two missing items, from my understanding, are the ubiquitous 
> semantic identifiers in all formats, and the event causality / event 
> monitoring handles capable of deciphering the undoubtedly complex 
> layers of events, firing events, firing OTHER events, which in turn 
> are used as decision points that fire yet more events, ad nauseum...

mm1: English please...let's look at this simply.  The key is to provide 
a mapping that begins with semantic understanding. For example, ebBP 
allows references to semantic information that provides (loosely) a 
context to the business information provided. The semantic (and 
syntactic) understanding between the specifications is that they can 
effectively use (at their level of intelligence) basic constructs and 
patterns between them. For example, ebBP provides a process 
specification, roles and relationships and activities associated with 
both.  CPA and ebMS takes that 'context' and uses them at the level it 
operates. This is semantic understanding. Of course there is more work 
to go (and we all acknowledge it). Your turn. Thanks.

>
> Monica, what are your thoughts on this last part?
>