RE: [wsbpel] CEFACT Liaison Review

["Fletcher, Tony" <Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com>]

Dear David,

It will certainly be very good and helpful if you are able to attend the
next F2F and give us a tutorial presentation on BCM as I tried to do for
the group this time on UN/CEFACT and its BCF ideas.  That could be very
helpful.

The BP catalogue work has migrated to the main group in UN/CEFACT with
is the International Trade and Business Processes group (TBG) - TBG 14 -
Business Process Analysis.  I am currently trying to get an update on
progress made be this group and any documents it has produced.

I think that the liaison with the BCF folk is important for three
reasons:

1)  It may have some slight impact on WSBPEL, and more likely WSBPEL may
have some slight impact on BCF.
Note that I do anticipate that the direct impact will be slight to
imperceptible!  So I do not think you should worry to much.

2)  Aspects of the BCF work may inform the WSBPEL work.  Here I am
thinking particularly of the standard business transaction and business
collaboration patterns work - which requires further elaboration on the
BCF side

3)  As I tried to highlight in my presentation, it can act as a doorway
for us to the folk in TBG who are working on the real business processes
- and yes that should help the use-case sub-group (of which I am also a
member, if a somewhat sleepy one at present!).

The term BCF was not in 'everyday' use when I was previously active in
UN/CEFACT (i.e. up to around December 2002), but certainly has now been
in use for a number of months.  The motion about the liaison to BCF
which this WSBPEL TC passed and that you kindly spoke in support of was
quite clear that it was to the BCF work which comes (or did until the
Seoul meeting anyway) mainly under the Business Process Working Group of
TMG.  I am sorry if you were under a misapprehension at the time.

I am still waiting to hear developments from the UN/CEFACT meeting last
week in Seoul, and significant new information may cause me to change my
stance, of course.  But until then I think we should continue with this
liaison as voted and agreed.  This is not to say that other liaisons are
not important - they may indeed be much more important, but others need
to judge that (i.e. let the messenger delver the message and do not
shoot them).

Best Regards     Tony
A M Fletcher
 
Cohesions  (TM)
 
Business transaction management software for application coordination
www.choreology.com
 
Choreology Ltd., 68 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9LJ     UK
Tel: +44 (0) 870 7390076   Fax: +44 (0) 870 7390077  Mobile: +44 (0)
7801 948219
tony.fletcher@choreology.com     (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)


-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber [mailto:david@drrw.info] 
Sent: 22 September 2003 20:00
To: Fletcher, Tony
Cc: David RR Webber - XML ebusiness; BPEL OASIS; jevdemon@microsoft.com;
Diane Jordan
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] CEFACT Liaison Review


Tony,

Actually I was seeing the EXACT opposite!

The BCF work was never mentioned when we voted on this - nor was even
known / 
announced / released by CEFACT.

The idea (so I thought!) was that you were liaising with the BPM folks
vis 
their BPM catalogue work and how those instances could relate to BPEL.

Clearly the BCF is a completely different animal.  

I'm particularly troubled by the notion that CEFACT could be setting a 
framework here and expecting OASIS to deliver technology to implement
it. That is clearly way way out of scope for BPEL V1.0.

If anyone should be talking to CEFACT about BCF - it is the OASIS TAG
team. Anything else at this point is potentially extremely prejudicial.

As a further point.  As OASIS BCM team liason - I feel strongly that the
OASIS 
BCM team work should be getting priority for our precious time and
resources, 
ahead of any work from CEFACT.

Apart from that - everything is just fine!

Thanks, DW.

Quoting "Fletcher, Tony" <Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com>:

> Dear David and others,
> 
> As the liaison person I am quite happy to have this topic on the 
> agenda for the next main group teleconference.  I hope to up load the 
> presentation that I made at the face to face on UN/CEFACT as an 
> organisation, and the BCF ideas and program.
> 
> Just to clarify: I take my liaison to be with folks developing the BCF

> and having regard to BCF work only.  So I have assumed it has 
> specifically excluded other work, such as BPSS, unless that work is 
> regarded as being part of the BCF (as the UMM is for instance).
> 
> We should note that, unless there have been changes at the Seoul 
> meeting last week that Klaus-Dieter Naujok is the chair of the TMG, 
> Christian Huemer the vice-chair and Dave Welsh the convenor of the 
> BPWG (Business Process Working Group).  These are currently the 
> relevant leaders. Anders Tell is the leader of the UBAC (Unified 
> Business Agreements and
> Contracts) Project, which may be interesting, but is not covered by
the
> liaison with the BCF work.
> 
> If David, or anyone else, has reports / knowledge of relevant 
> developments last week at the UN/CEFACT meeting then I would 
> appreciate if the would let me know either directly or via this list.
> 
> With thanks
> 
> Best Regards     Tony
> A M Fletcher
>  
> Cohesions  (TM)
>  
> Business transaction management software for application coordination 
> www.choreology.com
>  
> Choreology Ltd., 68 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9LJ     UK
> Tel: +44 (0) 870 7390076   Fax: +44 (0) 870 7390077  Mobile: +44 (0)
> 7801 948219
> tony.fletcher@choreology.com     (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David RR Webber - XML ebusiness [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
> Sent: 20 September 2003 14:11
> To: BPEL OASIS; Diane Jordan
> Subject: [wsbpel] CEFACT Liaison Review
> 
> 
> Diane,
> 
> Can you please add this topic to the agenda for the next meeting.
> 
> As proposer of the original motion to have a liaison with the CEFACT 
> BPM team headed by Anders Tell, and in the light of the unforeseen 
> events of the past few weeks since we made that decision, I believe we

> urgently need to re-visit this.
> 
> I recommend that we change the status from liaison to observer, and 
> that we limit the scope of that to only the BPM work, and not beyond 
> that.
> 
> Thanks, DW.
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster 
> of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_work
> gr
> oup.php.
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster 
> of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-
open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> 
> 


http://drrw.net