Dr. Withalm 2008-06-10

1. Enterprise COllaboration & INteroperability COIN WP5.4 Business Interoperability Services Siemens Milano, 01/08/2010 Ömer Karacan, Hannes Suttner, Walter Wölfel Dr. Withalm 2008-06-10

2. Agenda • Today’s goal • Reach a mature common understanding of CBP IP services • Discuss and clarify • The standard-derived metadata metamodel language to express public views at BPMN and xPDL level (SINTEF?) • The BPMN and xPDL parsers and intelligent system (SIEMENS?) • The Editors, drag&drop, interface with GSP (client) (TXT?) • Elaborate and summarize findings • Rebriefing and approvement of Sergio

3. Discussing suggestions and different propositions • Companies expose private BPs. A public view (of a private BP) is the virtual exposure of such a company’s single private process. It does not physically duplicate the private BP – instead the public view contains additional information, like metadata, business rules and policies. • The c-BP Business Manager works at business level. He adapts private BPs (BP  BP*), synchronizes public views and orchestrates the BP landscape of a specific company to ensure business in general economic context is running. • The c-BP IT Manager works at IT level. He translates BPs to implementable or rather implemented BPs (iBPs) and ensures, that business runs on IT. Whenever a private BP is adapted, he or some “rocket science algorithm” has to ensure that business in general and IT are in sync (iBP  iBP*) . • One challenge of on IT level is to identify BP interoperability gaps among virtual public views. Another challenge especially on “intelligent systems” as such is suggesting possible options to achieve interoperability. This should be the focus of our research in WP 5.4. • The editor at disposal of c-BP Manager is a tool to graphically show public views (which do not exist in reality), and the results of the intelligent system’s results as well as it’s proposals. The editor is NOT the main purpose of the WP 5.4. • A dual scenario should be made at IT level and again, the vertical i/op between the two levels should possibly be solved via 5.1 or external services (super, modelplex, shape, ...)

4. Investigative approach We focus on • a discovery phase of interoperability gaps • an analysis phase to evolve strategies and tactics to meet the interoperability gap challenges • implementation of CBP i/op gap services Additionally, we should consider having • a glossary of terms and abbreviations • scenario descriptions like • Expose BP • Link BP and Public Views and create a new BP (hierarchical BPs) • Transform BP to WF • Adapt BP and synchronize WF manually • Adapt BP and synchronize WF automatically • realistic examples, like:Company A sends 3 messages and expects 2 messages and company B expects 2 messages and sends 2 messages. The intelligent tool is able to reduce the 3 messages sent by A to 2 and to verify if the 2 messages sent by B are compatible with the 2 expected from A. • a list of actors

5. Design Time CBP PuP PuP GapProcess PuP Required public process XXX Design-Time • As for now, mostly the modeling part has been considered (Design-Time).

6. Run-Time • We should also think about the execution part (Run-Time). • Required View Process is found before the timer ran out, and invoked Run-Time CBP PuP PuP GapProcess PuP Monitor GSP Inform per SMS set timer Found public process for XXX