RE: [bcm] BCML

Hi,

 

Carl, you got the stage.  Look forward to
hearing from everyone on Monday.

 

mike

 

From:
 [mailto:] 

Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005
9:02 AM

To: 

Subject: [bcm] BCML

 

Folks:

At our next conference call I would like to discuss the goals for creating BCML
(Business Centric Methodology Language) which would leverage the CHECKMi work
on BAIL (Business Actuator Instruction Language) for Information Assurance and
explicitly support the ebXML languages.

Carl Mattocks

Consultant : ITIL Application Knowledge Management

MetLife 732 893 4170

'Always look on the bright side of life' Monty Python

----- Forwarded by Carl Mattocks/Bsg/MetLife/US on 12/09/2005
08:55 AM -----

 

  
  

  
  
  

  
"Sally St. Amand"
  <> 

  
12/08/2005 10:10 PM

  
  
  

  

  To:
  "ebSOA" <>

  cc: 

  Subject: [ebsoa] Fwd: [ebxml-bp]
  ebxml-jc 12/8/2005: Conformance for and compatibility between ebXML Specs

  
 

HI all

I think this relates to our
interest in standards convergence and working with the other TCs who are
pursuing the same or similar goals we are.

Sally

Monica J Martin <> wrote:

Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 13:53:55
-0800

From: Monica J Martin <>

To: , ebXML BP
<>,

ebXML Regrep <>,

, ,

iic <>, 

Subject: [ebxml-bp] ebxml-jc 12/8/2005: Conformance for and compatibility
between ebXML

Specs

First, forgive the cross-posting.

There are some points that may be of interest to consider for the 

specifications originally part of the ebXML framework. As a followup to 

the ebxml-jc meeting today, see the reference on the conformance and 

usage profile statements in the working draft of ebMS v3.0. We have 

discussed conformance and compatibility (historical loose coupling and 

high alignment) of the specifications of the ebXML framework recently in 

CPP/A and ebBP. To a more limited extent, this is also a question for 

Reg/Rep to consider.

>ebMS v3.0 draft reference - Document Description:

>Draft of a conformance Appendix section for ebMS3 (Dec 7, 2005).

>

>View Document Details:

>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/document.php?document_id=15832

>

>Download Document: 

>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/download.php/15832/ebms3-Conformance-2.pdf

>

(Note: There is no public post on this draft document).

For ebBP, we discussed the minimum set of requirements for our technical 

specification and how it could be used with others in the ebXML 

framework. We attempted to show the value of the specification itself 

and recognizing additional value with use with other technologies and in 

the context of compatibility with ebXML framework. Here is an excerpt 

from the draft text for information:

As with all the other specifications in the ebXML framework, an ebBP process
definition may be effectively used with other technologies. From 

the onset, these specifications have sought to be aligned as much as practical
and capable of being composed together and capable of being 

used with other technologies. That flexibility and composability are important
aspects not only to the adoption of these standards but their 

effective use and successful deployment into heterogeneous environments and
across domains. 

In the context of this technical specification, Business Collaborations may be
executed using the ebBP process definition and/or used with other 

technologies. As it relates to the other specifications in the ebXML framework,
an ebBP process definition supports the loose coupling and 

alignment needed to execute Business Collaborations. This specification may
also be used when several other software components are used to 

enable the execution of Business Collaborations. One example is the use of web
services mapped to business transactions activities. The ebBP 

technical specification is used to specify the business process related
configuration parameters for configuring a BSI to execute and monitor 

these collaborations. The ebBP business semantics and syntax are also
well-suited to enable definition of modular process building blocks that 

are combined in complex activities to meet user community needs. [1]

I'd encourage some thoughts and suggestions on simple yet consistent 

(not exact but compatible) statements that may help effectively 

communicate the value of each specification while also show they can be 

effectively used together where required and configured as needed.

[1] Reference:

Spec pr r02: 

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=15524&wg_abbrev=ebxml-bp

As amended by our recent discussion on composability (and its 

overloading): 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200512/msg00006.html

The
information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is for the
intended addressee only. Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the
information, or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the
intended addressee, please notify the sender immediately and delete this
message.