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

[john c hardin <john@crossconnections.ws>]

The UDEF link was protected. Here is the public link: http://www.opengroup.org/projects/udef/
Registration is free.

~~~~~~~~~
john c hardin
CIO - crossconnections.ws
313.930.5323 cell
mailto:john@crossconnections.ws

"The new electronic interdependence recreates the world in the image of a global village."

     Marshall McLuhan, "Gutenberg Galaxy", 1962



john c hardin wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback, Monica - I finally joined the ebBP group, and 
> will be on the call today.
> 
> What I was referring to was a wider issue that the overall architecture 
> of an SOA-like, cross-industry framework needs to address. That being, 
> the data element semantics in the actual business documents, which is 
> what I believe you are referring to by illustrating the "references to 
> semantic information that provides (loosely) a context to the business 
> information".
> 
> There should a pattern in the architecture for patterns that allows for 
> 'semantic resolution' between two formats. Mechanisms providing semantic 
> analysis, mapping code generation and finally, transformation between 
> two or more formats that were mapped, needs to be much more automated. 
> Contivo does an excellent job of this, with a drawback: the enterprise 
> vocabularies are described in - you guessed it - english. This works 
> well for enterprise semantic metadata repositories. However, a numeric 
> format (CCTS) or alphanumeric format (UDEF) needs to be used in the 
> global framework.
> 
> CPA should reference the semantic metadata entry (maybe Schema, could be 
> other however) in the registry that contains the semantic identification 
> information for each element, and the BP execution should link to the 
> transformation mechanism. Without human intervention. In english. ; >
> 
> By the way, the UDEF has been picked up by the Open Group as the 
> potential host for the data element trees:
> 
> http://www.opengroup.org/projects/udef/protected/
> 
> Let's remove the human mapping activity, eventually. Comments?
> 
>  >
>  > 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 J. Martin wrote:
> 
>> 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...
>>>
>>> Monica, what are your thoughts on this last part?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>