RE: [wsbpel] CEFACT Liaison Review

[David RR Webber <david@drrw.info>]

Tony,

I do wish I had the time and budget to travel to the F2F.
However - we can easily schedule some time in our regular
bi-weekly meetings to walk thru PPT slides on BCM, as
I agree that is necessary and will be most instructive.
Indeed that is how the BCM team itself is operating.

Next the 3 reasons for working with BCF.  Turns out the one
main area is the collaboration patterns and this is exactly 
the area that BCM has been working on for six months - 
including with the eGov TC - and so in terms of priority - 
I see that BPEL can get these items from an OASIS team, 
and facilitate OASIS specification development.

And - that's why I voted for the liaison - given it was with the
BPM area - and around these collaboration patterns. That 
is what makes sense here.  The BCF/UML/UMM stuff is of
limited value as you note. And I'm still maintaining that the 
BCF was completely unknown outside of the CEFACT CSG circle
until they announced the Asia tour and now the European tour.
Frankly - this is all just distraction and fluff.  And to say
that BCF is "in use" is stretching a point here.

Let's focus on the beef we need!

I'd love to have a BCM catalogue of templates, that can be
supported by BPEL, includes work from Anders Tell's group
on Useage Cases (yes - we circulated Ander's template for 
this to the use case sub-team) - and gives us a solid
foundation which can be used with OASIS registry technology.

And we can bring the OASIS eGov folks in to give us their
usage templates too - and develop those patterns.

This is all very closely within our grasp.  The BCM first
specification on templates is now out - and focusing on
getting these working to include BPEL scripts is clearly
something we can all work on. It's not a question of 
vague maybe's.  We can engineer real catalogues here.

And if we can derive value from CEFACT work on catalogues,
then that is where we need to focus our liaison.

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

> 
> 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
> 


http://drrw.net