ebBP Teleconference 8 August 2006 METU guests: Umut Orhan and Yildiray Kabak, students METU Dr. Asuman Dogac Attendees: Pim vanderEijk Nikola Stojanovic Dale Moberg Sally St. Amand Hima Mukkamala Sacha Schlegel David Webber Monica J. Martin Regrets: Stephen Green METU presentations Dogac: Improved ebBP software will be demonstrated today and the team will explain the editor with three scenarios. METU (tradeoff between Umut and Yildiray): Demonstrated editing an existing process definition. Show how to create a new business process, import an existing a business transaction, and create Business Collaboration (BC). The IHE tool allows the user to specify their actors and generate the business process automatically. Demonstrated how the criminal justice example from the Netherlands displayed in the design tool (very complex given the many interactions). The process specification can be edited from graphical page or XML stylist. We can delete business collaborations from the existing EPV example. Then we can also create a BC from scratch. XML stylist warns of missing attributes in creation with the package. Create a new BC. Then, create roles (must have at least two). Then create a Business Transaction (BT) Activity (BTA). Use the IHE actor grouping capabilities. Interoperability in eHealth integration profiles standards are harmonized for a specific use case. METU propose to represent these profiles using ebBP. The most important issue is the capability to attain actor grouping with multiple actors and roles. The ebBP definition requires merging of roles. User selects actors it supports and generates ebBP definition automatically using the file wizard. vanderEijk: You typed in cross references. Can you select a drop down wigget to select the ID from a list? METU: Yes, this is supported and the ids are selected for that BT and are stored in the process specification for the particular BTA. In the future, we will add the capability to drag and drop in the grepahical tool for the transitions. vanderEijk: This will aid transitions in the process definition. Do you have to close the stylist to see the graphical interface when you have a complex flow? Can you update the graphical representation while editing? METU: These capabilities are supported. We used aspects of BPMN in our graphical tool Martin: Can you provide some information on the success at using BPMN because ebBP has provided feedback to OMG BMIDTF to help along the BPMN FTF process and future specification. ACTION: METU/provide information of challenges with BPMN v1.0 usage. METU: Use abstraction mechanism for BPMN. Many Collaboration Activities (CA) gets complex to understand. Martin: what about OWL and classification? METU: Used the 8 BT pattern types. Use this with OWL, or create our own BT pattern. We specialized BT Notification for example. Patient ID feed to send patient information to another organization. Martin: Do you use the Data Exchange pattern? METU: Yes. We validate via Data Exchange element from schema. The tool can validate against signal and core schemas. Stojanovic: Have you bound to registry? METU: Not yet. Stojanovic: Classification node in registry and should be related to the process definition. METU: This is a future goal. Stojanovic: Are uuid used? METU: We use unique ids in the process definitions. Stojanovic: What about versioning? METU: Versioning of artifacts has not yet been integrated into the tool. Stojanovic: With OWL, which profiles do we need for something such as this? If using OWL, there should be a profile to do so. Is there a profile yet for use of ebBP and OWL? OWL profile for registry exists. METU: An ebBP Profile for registry is considered option. Stojanovic: Three related profiles at least could exist. How do we ensure profiles are compatible? Binding specification that normatively defines how to express ebBP with OWL? METU: we've not expressed in OWL yet. OWL gives ontology about the business transaction pattern only currently. These are used to classify the patterns. An ontology subclass is associated with pattern. Stojanovic: The patterns should be represented as classification schemes and classification nodes created. Is there a bridge? The bridge has not yet been created between the registry and the process definition Current implementation is a file system. Stojanovic: An ebBP OWL could go beyond this point. I don't understand ultimate purpose of ebBP and use of OWL. ebBP has much richer semantics that could be used. METU: The semantics is much richer agreed that these 6 nodes, from this example. It can be extended. A user could extend this OWL document by editing with new classes, subclasses, etc. These changes can be visualized in the editor. Give initial classes to the user. Stojanvoic: It would be beneficial what profiles are needed. Martin: We have a deployment profile template for ebBP developed with IIC to help guide user community. This is a non-normative initial guide (an IIC committee draft). It was not meant to be a normative profile, similar to those created in RegRep. Stojanovic: Workflow ebBP editor started demonstration with EPV example. How do you handle multi-party collaboration (MPC)? METU: Interdepartmental workflows in IHE are used. Stojanovic (?): How effective was ebBP to support MPC and how effective has it been? If we can support mpc - can we support the continuum. METU: We found that ebBP and the schemas are enough to represent IHE profiles sufficiently. Stojanovic: From an architectural view - do we need more for orchestration and choreography than ebbP? METU: In our project we also did a BPEL editor that focused on the orchestration. Stojanvoic: The Registry can store WSDL documents too. METU: We used the ebBP editor to do choreography - assuming that services could be represented as actors with some relationship. Stojanovic: Is it possible to do ebBP to cover orchestration? METU: In my opinion, yes, it can do orchestration with all participants within an enterprise. While there is bpel in a more detailed way, there is no need to do that. Martin: They could be used together. This has been shown for example with WS-CDL from W3C with endpoint generation to a BPEL stub. Stojanovic: Several projects are facing this question. There are many activities that could be relevant in a project such as this. How these specifications relate is very important. vanderEijk: What are the plans for the editor? METU: The future is to get to v1.0 - more drag-drop and management. More testing is required. We need to add more exception handling although this has been more enhanced that the first draft. Martin: What about schema validation? Is it schema and semantics? METU: Current is syntactic validation complete for ebBP v2.0.3. There is no semantic validation yet. Consider semantic validation in the future. METU: On IHE profile, ebBP is sufficient to express complex collaborations. Other parameters such as network addresses may be required. Meet these requirements with CPP and CPA. Martin: Have you used Operation Mapping yet? METU: Not yet and they are not used currently in profiles. Webber: These specifications, although independent, are designed to be used together. Martin: Has work on CPA editor continued? METU: This is in work - we also use other editor with ebBP. Martin: Validate against two technologies? METU: Yes. We also new IHE configuration management tools. Inputs ebBP definition and allows user to create CPP according to that definition. vanderEijk (?): Will the management tool reverse engineer an ihe profile from an ebBP? METU: No, but this tool allows the user to construct its CPP and CPA definitions. The first version is available at our web site. See link in references IHE Configuration Management Tool. A future demonstration will show this. Stojanovic: What is the license for this tool? METU: We will list the license on source forge site so people know. Source code includes license. vanderEijk: Can you export the diagrams to include in documentation? METU: Yes, but in this version this is not automated. However it can be done consider for future. We hope to export visual elements. Other business: a. Meeting minutes Approve meeting minutes 25 July and 1 August 2006. Approved minutes - no objections. b. OASIS standardization St. Amand: Is it time to recontact other vendors? Martin: Yes. This is a good time. Add: License information The license of freebxmlbp tool is based on Apache Software License and it is available at: http://www.srdc.metu.edu.tr/freebXMLBP/freebXMLBP-License.txt