W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > March 2006

Re: [RIF]: Business process use case (was information integration)

From: Frank McCabe <frank.mccabe@us.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:19:36 -0800
Message-Id: <9C8FFFAE-4A48-46F7-91F7-F1CBB01D5C22@us.fujitsu.com>
Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
To: "Vincent, Paul D" <PaulVincent@fairisaac.com>

Paul:
  Comments in line ....
On Mar 6, 2006, at 1:24 AM, Vincent, Paul D wrote:

>
> Frank: I guess the crux of the use case is
> <<The RIF should be used to permit the BP designer a unified view  
> of the
> different partners' business rules in designing the process, while at
> the same time permitting the partners to continue to leverage their  
> own
> business rules without changing their own technologies.>>
>
> I can't disagree. Should there be more detail than this, though?

Perhaps.

>
> For example:
> 1/ I might use organizational rules (policies, strategies etc) to  
> direct
> my business process design - probably this is related to the "human
> readable" / "inter-organizational" rules, as directives for process
> design.

I was trying to steer John Hall's human use case into this direction :)

>
> 2/ I might discover automated rule services that carry out some  
> business
> process, which I need to embed / include in my process design.  
> Possibly
> this is more of a UDDI process as the details of the rules themselves
> may be less important. On the other hand this is more "process
> orchestration" than "design".

I do not see this. This is simply including a process that is  
implemented by a partner in my process. Something that happens all  
the time but is not rules specific.

However, there is a duality in process design: the actions taken and  
the decisions taken. It is in the latter case that we will need  
access to the rule logic of our partners.

>
> 3/ I might want to combine / refine existing rules to create a new
> "process". There are probably 2 subcases of this:
> 3a/ I am simply re-organizing rules to recreate a new rule service -
> this is more rule management than process management.
> 3b/ I am combining rules with process flow ie mapping rules, rule
> services (/ subprocesses) to a flow/rule combination. I guess this  
> is a
> combination of 1/ and 2/...
>

This is more of the same.

> The role of RIF here is as a vendor-neutral rule format, which is of
> course related to the "Cross-Platform Rule Development and Deployment"
> now
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/ 
> Negotiating_eBusiness_Contracts
> _Across_Rule_Platforms


Well, I would hope that the vendor-neutral stuff show up in all the  
use cases!
Frank

>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul Vincent
> Fair Isaac Blaze Advisor --- Business Rule Management
> OMG PRR and W3C RIF for rule standards
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg- 
> request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Francis McCabe
> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 12:24 AM
> To: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Business process use case (was information integration)
>
>
> I have edited the supply chain integration case to focus more on
> integrating business logic across departments and business partners.
> Although supply chains form a classic instance of business processes,
> there are many many kinds of BPs being built today.
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/
> Access_to_Business_Rules_of_Supply_Chain_Partners
>
> Frank
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 18:19:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:27 GMT