Unilateral Submit (was Re: [ubl-comment] LCSC Minutes)

[Todd Boyle <tboyle@rosehill.net>]

At 09:41 AM 4/4/02, you wrote:

>I have posted the minutes from the last LCSC meeting.
>
><http://oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/lcsc/>http://oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/lcsc/ 
>
>
>Lisa

Excellent.   UBL workgroup, and its participants deserve recognition for
the thoroughness of its minutes and openness and transparency of the
process.

Couple of points.  The minutes noted there is a need to provide comments
to Core Component Technical Specification (which is in its public review
right now.)   IMO the UBL group should feel entitled to question its whole
conceptual assumptions as well as suggesting any mechanical changes that
serve any arbitrary need of UBL.  That's just my opinion.

Regarding Business Process.  The models of the ebTWG BP*  workgroups
continue to evolve in significant ways.

In the Seattle meetings of ebTWG I got the impression the BP* workgroups
moved decisively to converge their work with the TMWG UMM.  On Wed. of
the week, the BCPMC delivered a presentation to CCTS workgroup (see
thread "BP requirements to CC" in
http://lists.ebtwg.org/archives/ebtwg-ccs/200202/threads.html

Each individual in the CC and BP communities has a somewhat different
cognitive understanding of the nature and purpose of Core Components.

These views are somewhat divergent and perhaps it is just my own
confusion but it's not entirely clear to me that all of those views are
capable of reconciliation, in every respect.

All of these things suggest the UBL will be mature far sooner than the
UMM or BP models and perhaps the CCTS itself.

My conclusion is that UBL is on track to reach a stable specification
far sooner than the UMM meta model.  Accordligly UBL members should
articulate to the BP and TMWG communities some kind of a placeholder or
"stub" that you need within their work, rather than wait for them to
tell you requirements of how you must converge with the UMM. That is
not to say, Core Components or UBL is superior in any regards but,
should avoid waiting 2.5 years to make a presentation to the TMWG
or BP workgroups how they must change to accommodate Core Components.

I suggest that the first, standard Business Collaboration Pattern, or
choreography is an atomic, "Unilateral Submit" of a business document.
This means,

"I hereby send you a document and you do whatever you want. If you can
figure out my document, and you like it, then you might do an action or
send a response.  Perhaps you will refer to our contract or to links
in my document.

If I like what you did, I might then do the next step(s) towards doing
business with you.  "

This harmonizes with ebXML to get all those reliable messaging, CPPA,
and BP tools and runtimes.  This admits, the reality that SMEs already
know how to do business and particularly one-man companies that
have one desk, are not interested in workflow or business process
suggestions.  They do however have a BIG need for reliable delivery
and just getting the payables, receivables and inventory entries
into their computer (where they will almost always review them
manually.)

Sorry for blathering so long again,

Todd
Todd Boyle CPA  9745-128th Ave NE  Kirkland WA
International Accounting Services, LLC  www.gldialtone.com
tboyle@rosehill.net  425-827-3107