[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] ActionItem: Potential Expressive Shortcomings in Roleinformation within current BPSS approach
>> Moberg: BPSS and Business Process Role >> Polyadicity >> Polyadicity is the property of how many relata are in a relation. The >> current treatment of business process deals with only abstracted >> business relations. For example, in a concrete selling relation such >> as “selling,” there are typically more kinds of things being related >> than just a buyer and a seller. There is a product or service being >> purchased and there is some arrangement made for something to be >> received in exchange for the product or service (a payment, for >> example). [Otherwise we might have a hard time distinguishing >> “selling” from “giving”.] UMM inspired business process models so far >> do not capture cleanly these richer business process relational >> descriptions, but that is not necessarily a shortcoming. > > Tell: Im not sure I follow you here. UMM is in fact one of few > electronic collaboration frameworks outside research labs that > actually *in* the framework has support for business semantics such as > selling and giving, its simple REA. Selling - money for goods, Giving > - only money or goods in one direction. > In most other frameworks the business come into play by *usage* of the > framework. > >> Moberg: Cardinality >> Finally, and less critically, there is at present no indication of >> how many occupants there are for a role, or that occupants are >> entering or exiting. > > Tell: This is indeed interesting area for a business collaboration > framework. Personally I prefer to talk about : > * specification- someone has authored a description of a Business Service mm1: Business process description. > * capability - a party has expressed that party business syste kan > handle certain b.transactions (type level) mm1: Isn't this expressed in the party's CPP or a CPA template prior to any negotiation? > * capacity - ontop of having the capability a party may also express > that the party has the capacity to use/utilize the capability in > certain ways (instance level). ex: 6 simultanous enactments, only > during office hours,... mm1: Perhaps Dale can answer if this is applicable after the CPA negotiation occurs. I am not sure. > /anders >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]