Yes, I see what you are saying. I think we
are probably of a pretty-much like mind.
I think of the subjects in each clause in
your example as 'actors', and actors are entities, typically acting
in specific roles. Likewise, the objects in each clause are also entities, and
they may be acting in a particular role when they expose the service that the
actor is invoking.
Your example illustrates this well: the
supplier in the first clause is probably a business entity acting in the role
of supplier and exposing a supplier service, but then becomes an actor (the
same business entity acting now in the role of a shipping customer) requesting
services of the shipper (some other business entity).
I think what I am suggesting is that we
break these additional terms out and add them to our glossary as well: 'role',
'actor', and 'service'.
HTH,
Rand
-----Original Message-----
From: Manglani, Rajesh
[mailto:RManglani@uc-council.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003
3:57 PM
To: Rand Anderson
Cc:
'wsbpel-uc@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-uc]
Definition of "Entity"
Just my 2 cents... but
the reason I put in the "role" was because most of the times when we
describe use-cases, we use roles more than formal organizational names for
example a business scenario might begin with "let's suppose a buyer
places an order ..... with a supplier...... and goes thru an agent..... who
contacts the shipper"
granted, each of these
entities may in turn have a Global Location Number (GLN) or a DUNS.... but I
hope you understand what I was driving at.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Rand Anderson
[mailto:randerson@macgregor.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003
3:51 PM
To: Manglani, Rajesh; 'Monica
Martin'; Sally St. Amand
Cc:
'wsbpel-uc@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-uc]
Definition of "Entity"
I think we are close.
My proposed changes -- I
think we should re-introduce the 'functional' qualifier, and drop the 'and
roles...' clause, so it would read something like this:
"An entity is any
functional organization, including for example businesses, government agencies,
and division or departments within such organizations."
The 'roles' clause
doesn't add anything to what qualifies as an entity, and it may confuse things
later as we flesh out the vocabulary - e.g., I anticipate that we will want to
talk about entities taking on various roles, etc.
HTH,
Rand
-----Original Message-----
From: Manglani, Rajesh
[mailto:RManglani@uc-council.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003
3:30 PM
To: 'Monica Martin'; Sally St.
Amand
Cc:
'wsbpel-uc@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-uc]
Definition of "Entity"
Sally,
your definition sounds good to me
/An entity is any component of an organization to
include businesses,government agencies, divisions or departments within
organizations,and roles within organizations such as seller./
Also, the difference with UN/CEFACT definition of a
business entity can be enumerated as a footnote.
thanks
-rajesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Monica Martin [mailto:monica.martin@sun.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003
3:31 PM
To: Sally St. Amand
Cc: Manglani, Rajesh;
'wsbpel-uc@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-uc] Definition
of "Entity"
Sally St. Amand wrote:
> Rajesh-
>
> /An entity is any component of
an organization to include businesses,
> government agencies, divisions
or departments within organizations,
> and roles within organizations
such as seller./
>
> In my mind the primary goal is
to communicate in order to have a
> shared understanding. We
don't, on this kind of issue, need to have
> the precision that is
important in for example the specification.
>
> Sally
>
mm1: This is the level of
granularity that seems appropriate, and is in
line with my suggestions. What does
everyone else think?