RE: [plcs-dex] Business concepts

See below

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Turner [mailto:tjt@lsc.co.uk]
Sent: 05 September 2005 22:34
To: 'rob.bodington@eurostep.com'; Tim Turner; plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: 'Martin Gibson'; 'Phil Rutland'
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Business concepts

Sorry for the delayed response.

More comments to clarify (I hope).

regards,

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Bodington [mailto:rob.bodington@eurostep.com]
Sent: 01 September 2005 02:30
To: 'Tim Turner'; plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: 'Martin Gibson'; 'Phil Rutland'
Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Business concepts

Hi Tim

See below

Regards
Rob

-----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

Hi Rob,

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.

RBN2] No – the template is “used” – not “defined” in the business concepts

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.

RBN2] If it is a DEX – lets call it a DEX

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?

RBN2] I absolutely agree that a template should be defined in a capability and that all capabilities should define temapltes. The opnly reason why there is a template defined in Manufactures-Item is that the required template “representing_part” had not been defined in the capability representing part. I thought that I had made this clear in my email about manufacturers item (which is why I send you the VISIO for representing part) – sorry I was obviously not clear enough.

regards,

Tim

-----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)

Regards
Rob

-----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?

regards,

Tim

-----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.

Regards
Rob

-----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

Regards
Rob

-----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

plcs-dex message