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

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

Thank you for the compliments.  I believe the participants in UBL have 
had enough experience with how collaborative and open processes should 
NOT be managed to be able to do it properly.

To address your specific points:

Yes, we recognise that now is the time to comment on the CCTS and we are 
preparing our comments accordingly.  However, we do not believe that 
changes should be made to suit the arbitrary needs of UBL.  We do 
believe our experience with trying to apply these specificiations has 
given us useful feedback for the CCTS team.
Within UBL we are attempting to conform to the CCTS work as it emerges, 
but this is obviously an iterative process.  Something we also recognise 
is that UBL has both a 'conceptual model' compliant with CCTS and a 
'physical model' (ie schemas) which introduce the technical 
implementation requirements of our target environment (XML).  Remebere, 
we are not 'syntax-neutral' (as are ebXML and ebTWG)- we are XML 
focussed.  Our results are implementable schemas not just conceptual 
models.  Therefore, we have our own UBL Naming and design rules as well 
as CCTS requirements.   As such, we have to be conscious to not promote  
'physical model' features back into the work of CCTS.

With respect to the work of the various BP groups within ebTWG, we 
recognise the 'top down' approach is the long term future for designing 
business process, their transactions and their requisite data 
requirements.  However, one of the motivations for UBL was to stake some 
ground for an ebXML compliant XML vocabulary for e-business documents, 
sonner rather than later.  We deliberately took a 'bottom up' (or 
'bottoms up' to use our in-joke) approach.  This is not an unknown 
situation in any software development - the important factor is that we 
try to connect in the middle.  Your idea of a placeholder is a good one 
and rest assured we are following the work of the various ebTWG teams 
closely.  Hopefully, once the dust settles in CEFACT-land the picture 
will become clearer.  In any case, our experience will again provide 
valuable feedback into the modelling of Core Components and their 
relationship with Business Processes.

Finally, while we are handing out bouquets, let me take the opportunity 
to recognise the ongoing contribution you are making to the ebXML 
'vision'.  In Australia, we have a minority political party that has as 
its motto "keeping the bastards honest" - you might want to adopt it 
yourself!


Todd Boyle wrote:

> 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
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> .
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142