Sorry
for the delayed response.
More
comments to clarify (I hope).
regards,
Tim
Hi Tim
See
below
-----Original
Message----- From:
Tim Turner [mailto:tjt@lsc.co.uk]
Sent: 31 August 2005
19:04 To:
'rob.bodington@eurostep.com'; Tim Turner;
plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: 'Martin
Gibson'; 'Phil
Rutland' Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Business
concepts
No problem, but since
we're talking about 'architecture' etc., I would like to raise a question
about templates which has been at the back of my mind
recently.
Is it possible that
different templates (maybe similar, but refined), would be developed by &
for business specific purposes? I raise this question because it seems
like a possible scenario, given that we have been developing templates
for the generic (or widest accepted) usage. Just as with the reference data -
we started off just with the most generic stuff required to support a
capability, but now we have bus. specific ref.data. If bus. specific concerns
can generate new/refined templates, then acc. to fig1, this would probably
require a new capability.
If your current fig1
below is correct, then this would somehow feedback to the capabilities in
general & the exsting templates. However, if somehow the templates were
managed separately from the capability, then different templates could be
'plugged-in' to support the different bus.concepts & ref.data. This might
then reduce the number of escalating capabilities required and even
consolidate some where there is already considerable overlap. If the Dexs had
the ability to act as a configuration mechanism (as they do now for
capabilities) they might also specify which templates
(assuming several valid for each cap) are to be usedwithin a data
exchange contract.
[RBN]
Don't quite understand what you mean by feedback. The business concepts are in
affect the definition of a mapping from a business construct to PCLS entities.
This mapping is expressed via templates. The templates are defined within a
capability as they are expressing how to use a subset of the information model
of a capability.
[Tim Turner] Changing a
template as a result of a business concept requirement would (acc. to your
existing diagram below) require a change to the capability's use of the
same template. Just as you mention above, it's an interpretation of
the capability's info model. However, what is the relationship between a
template defined purely for the generic capability and one which is defined
through a business concept? If one is based upon the other, how do we
show that? I think there are, or will be a need for both and we'll need to
re-jig the figure to accomodate this aspect.
Irrespectively of
this waffle, I would suggest that your fig might use the term DEC (Data
Exchange Contract) rather than overload DEX.
[RBN]
I would rather not introduce yt more terms (which is why I tried to understand
if a data exchange contract had anything more than a business DEX)
[Tim Turner] Your figure
labels a Business DEX as a Data Exchange Agreement. Previously, they were called
contracts. I don't know when the name
changed.
Also, I'd
perhaps suggest that a business concept is not defined_by a
capability. The business concept can be exchanged 'in the context of' a
specified capability. It is actually the bus.concept which defines the context
(through the ref data and mapping) in which the capability is used. (I think
this is what led me to thinking about templates specific for a
particular type of bus.concept...)
[RBN]
I'm not sure that I agree. Take a look at the manufacturers_item example.
I think that it is important that a business concept is defined by
templates that are within the capabilities. The reason being is that as far as
possible we want to have a consistent interpretation of the PLCS model. That
is why we have capabilities and templates.
[Tim Turner] In this sentence
you say that each bus. concept must be defined by templates within
a capability. I think that each capability should have a slot for a
template, (else we may have to develop new capabilities for each bus. usage). By
default, the generic one is used unless a business concept defines another (for
use within a defined Business Dex). The alternate may be (should be?) based upon
the original/default template. The manufacturers_item example provides one view
of a template defined in the context of TLSS. I can easily imagine another
project might define something similar, but different for their project, based
upon other business concepts. Which of these two should go into C002? Or
should there be a generic one by default?
-----Original
Message----- From: Rob
Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] Sent: 31 August 2005 12:35 To: 'Tim Turner';
plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: 'Martin Gibson'; 'Phil
Rutland' Subject: RE:
[plcs-dex] Business concepts
Hi
I confess - I was a
bit hasty in sending out the diagram.
I meant to explain
that we previously talked about "Data exchange contracts" but never really
defined them beyond:
Identify the DEX and
its version
Identify the relevant
conformance class (documented in the DEX)
Identify business
concepts (which again refer to business specific sets of reference data)
Reference data library
/ ref data sources
Bounding scope of
reference data
Data representation
rules and constraints (for data validation)
Explanation of how
that information is represented is defined in the capabilities
Once I looked into
this I felt that it was really a dex defined using business concepts. Hence
the suggestion that it should be referred to as a "Business DEX". What else
would go into an exchange contract (apart from the legal / service /
availability / liability aspects) and do we want to provide that in
DEXlib?
I agree with you
Tim, that a Business DEX should use the same XML as a PLCS
DEX.
However, a PLCS DEX
refers to the PLCS activity model. A Business DEX, might
not.
I need to look into
the impact of using the DEX XML to represent Business
DEXs.
In the meantime,
here is an updated diagram reflecting the comments so far.
BTW - so far nobody
has said they preferred the original diagram, so I will make the change in
the help files (we can modify this as a result of any further
discussion)
-----Original
Message----- From: Tim
Turner [mailto:tjt@lsc.co.uk] Sent: 31 August 2005 16:41 To: 'rob.bodington@eurostep.com';
plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: 'Martin Gibson'; 'Phil
Rutland' Subject: RE:
[plcs-dex] Business concepts
I had not heard of
business dex before. However, in our context I can see it might be
useful.
However, I don't
know that a Dex is defined by business concepts (fig2). I'd suggest that
they use business concepts. Also, I'd presume that they may be based upon a
PLCS Dex. In fact, both should be based upon the PLCS Dex
template.
How
will Dexlib differentiate between these two types of
Dexs though?
-----Original
Message----- From: Rob
Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] Sent: 31 August 2005
08:46 To:
plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: 'Martin Gibson'; 'Phil
Rutland' Subject: RE:
[plcs-dex] Business concepts
Hi
In the proposed
diagram, I should probably include Templates in a capability.
Also, The
Business DEXs that are arguably the same as a Data exchange agreement-
though a data exchange agreement may well have additional legal
information.
There perhaps
should also be a relationship between a "Business DEX" to a "PLCS DEX"
indicating that the Business DEX conforms to the PLCS
DEX.
-----Original
Message----- From: Rob
Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] Sent: 31 August 2005
13:21 To:
plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: 'Martin Gibson'; 'Phil
Rutland' Subject: RE:
[plcs-dex] Business concepts
Hi
I have also
attempted to refine the diagram that shows the relationship between the
DEXS, business concept, ref data etc.
If everyone
agrees, I would like to replace the following figure in Introduction with
the diagram below
-----Original
Message----- From: Rob
Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com] Sent: 31 August 2005
12:01 To:
plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: Martin Gibson; Phil
Rutland Subject:
[plcs-dex] Business concepts
Hi
I have now completed the
changes to the business concepts.
Basically, a business concept
must be defined within a context.
This has meant a fair amount
of change to DEXlib XSL. If you find that anything does not work, please
tell me.
Details on how to create a
business concept are provided in the "Developing a
Business concept" help pages. This also explains the new business concept
directory structure. If this does not make sense, then let me know, or
propose some changes.
I have also provided
a section in the "Introduction" help pages that describes business
concepts. Whilst I was at it, I "improved" the
section describing reference data. See what you think.
If anyone has been developing
business concepts, please contact me about migrating the old business
concepts to the new.
I have deleted the existing
business concept directories:
dexlib/data/busconcept/allowance_parts_list
dexlib/data/busconcept/bc_template
dexlib/data/busconcept/identify_a_part_and_its_constituent_parts
dexlib/data/busconcept/manufacturers_item
Let me know if these should e
retained.
I have created one example
context TLSS and defined a single business concept within it:
"manufacturers_item"
Regards Rob
------------------------------------------- Rob
Bodington Eurostep Limited Web Page: http://www.eurostep.com
http://www.share-a-space.com Email:
Rob.Bodington@eurostep.com Phone: +44 (0)1454 270030 Mobile: +44
(0)7796 176 401
DISCLAIMER:
***SECURITY LABEL: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED*** The information in this
message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely
for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If
you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution
of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is
prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you
have received this message in error. This e-mail originates from LSC Group.
Registered in England & Wales No 2275471 Registered Office: Devonport
Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1 4SG
DISCLAIMER: ***SECURITY LABEL: NOT PROTECTIVELY
MARKED*** The information in this message is confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by
anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission
taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please
immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error.
This e-mail originates from LSC Group. Registered in England & Wales No
2275471 Registered Office: Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1
4SG
DISCLAIMER: ***SECURITY LABEL: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED*** The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. This e-mail originates from LSC Group. Registered in England & Wales No 2275471 Registered Office: Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1 4SG
|