Talk:Business process interoperability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Business process interoperability article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Copyright The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.n3p.org. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to license this material under the GNU Free Documentation License, and evidence of this has been lodged with the Wikimedia PR department, under OTRS ticket number 2006030210000256.

This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia Open Ticket Request System (OTRS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-en at wikimedia dot org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

I am coordinator of N3P.org. We are a non-profit organization that promotes the use of shared data and business procedures. We grant free use of all tbe text published on our site.

One of our objectives is for the automation of business processes to be discussed using a common language. Rewriting this article using a different set of words would defeat this purpose. I respectfully request that this article be allowed to stand.

Confirmation email sent to website contact. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
One of Wikipedia's founding principles is collective ownership of articles, so as soon as you put an article in WP you must be prepared it will be to modified, amended etc. Asking people not to modify articles because this will not be conform to you organization's view defeat the whole purpose of WP, so you should not put your definition here as it will be edited mercilessly.
In fact, I have the impression that you are trying to force the view the definition of your organization n3p its own vocabulary here; plus this entry seems to me to be a neologism and your goal by putting it here seems seeking publicity even if your goal of defining a common vocabulary sounds noble and It doesn't matter if your organization is for profit or not. Please check those official WP guidelines : WP:NEO and WP:NOR they clearly state that neologisms and creating new terms and concepts are not allowed here as WP is merely for defining concepts already in use, NOT a mean to promote them, I have also checked the net and this entry seems to be not notable the only occurences I have seen are related to your organization, so this clearly violates another WP principle. I hope you won't find my words rude, but I am simply trying to explain that the whole purpose of WP is merely registering what is already common knowledge not promoting it and not inventing new knowledge, if everybody start defining his/her own vocabulary we will end with an unintelligible corpus of information and not a universal one. Yours--Khalid hassani 18:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The comment of the author noted above is in response to a copyvio tag I placed on the article earlier. The author is asking for administrators to allow the article to remain on wikipedia. I don't interpret it to mean no one else should edit the article. It is a justifcation to administrators of why the article should is a valid etnry. JonHarder 19:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Still its a neologism and as such in my opinion it should not stay in WP. If everyone begins starts defining his own termes without even mentioning they are neologisms, this will defeat the whole concept on an Encyclopedia to begin with. Think of thousands of entries like this and how unsepecting people will react, thinking this is a universal material ? are you aware of other use of this terme outside n3p ? --Khalid hassani 14:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I was responding only to the appearance that the author did not welcome other editors input, which I don't believe was the intent of the statement. I don't defend the appropriateness of the article. It passed the copyvio process. I believe it is worth challenging on the basis you suggest. JonHarder 14:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The term "business process interoperability" is not a neologism. A Google search shows a great many entries on the subject. This article simply places BPI in a neutral context with the objective of articulating a precise definition. Wikipedians will hopefully contribute to this article to improve it further. Nmyers 17:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
a google search shows only 528 occurences for BPI, this clearly a neologism for me or at least not enough notable. Plus the majority of the vocabulary defined in Universal Enterprise Infrastructure (145 occurences in google here, and the majority related to n3p) seems in the same case, this entry clearly that it has been defined by n3p (which doens't seems to be notable too) the problem for me is that this vocabulary is mixed with more universal (emergeing) vocabulary like Web services, On demand, SOA Etc. This doesn't help clarifying the field, imagine that an other organization comes and tried to introduce its own vocabulary in the same way we will end up with an incredible amout of vocabulary. This is the reason why WP only accept universally approved terms, you see my point ? Please see WP:NEO and WP:NOR for WP policy on Original research and neologisms --Khalid hassani 00:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the term "business process interoperability" was not introduced by n3p. BPI is being used by IBM, Oracle, SAP, Fijitsu and BEA, to name a few, and is a subject being studied by many research groups around the world, including the W3C in reference to the semantic web. We also shouldn't be concerned that BPI mixes or confuses "emerging" technologies like web services and SOA. Quite to the contrary, BPI helps clarify these terms, which are little understood by technologists, let alone business people. We must keep in mind that a central purpose of Web services and SOA is to enable BPI, make business processes independent of the IT systems used. Finally, the raw number of Google hits should not be the only measure of whether a term should be included in WP. Nmyers 16:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm no fan of using Google hits as evidence for or against wikipedia inclusing. I just did a quick check and discovered, according to google hits, that the moon is 155 times more likely to be made of green cheese than blue cheese. I may be onto something here. Coming back to this article, I would like to see sources cited and a references section. This would help show how broadly this information is published, allow others to do deeper research on the topic and make the article look less like original research. JonHarder 19:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I am currently studying at QUT in the BPM group with a few advanced researchers in the area of BPM. The specific purpose of this page in my view (though I have no experience with the BPI concept before seeing this page) is to detail the ways in which computers are exploited in a business. I on the other hand have been focusing on the ways in which business processes are integrated through Process Aware Information Systems (PAIS), to use a term which is possibly itself still a neologism but relates to this are. The greatest gains that can be achieved through the use of mechanical workhorses (ie, computers) are possibly going to be achieved when the computer knows about its context, ie, its place in the business process, and can exploit that place to do its job to the best of its ability. This is a new area, with one of the reference books that I am reading being published in 2005 (ie. Dumas, M., van der Aalst, W. M. P., ter Hofstede, A. H. M. (Eds.) (2005). Process Aware Information Systems. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley). I actually think that the big deal about BPI is a bit overrated because it ignores current research into these new areas where processes spawn the information systems below them. It almost seems like a last century concept to me being around people who are talking about process models constantly and the possibilities for using them to directly and dynamically define the way a companies information systems do their job, as opposed to the focus of this page which is on determining just how well the programmed information systems do their jobs.
As a side comment, the page still seems to read like a bad management seminar. I see it as trying to teach people how to test and specify things without going to the root cause of the problem, which in my view is a lack of focus on the business process model behind the system. Ansell 23:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
There are some valid points above, but BPI is not an exercise in computer science. The operative word here is “business”. BPI refers to the tasks people do at work, and that companies employ to deal with their customers, vendors and partners. The emphasis is not on the exploitation of computers. To the contrary, the focus is on getting the task done regardless of the computers in use. It’s safe to say that mainstream business people view computers simply as tools. Their main focus is growing market share, increasing profits and lowering costs. If you tell a manager that you can get his department to carry out the same amount of work with half the workers, you’re likely to get his ear. If you tell him you can automate a process that he believes will generate a point of market share, he’ll listen. That’s why the test of BPI is included. It’s a business user’s way of examining a process to get it done in the most efficient way possible.
As for reading like a bad management seminar, you’re probably right, although the feedback I’ve received is pretty good, But then again the audience was composed of business people. NMyers 02:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Well this whole discussion about the merits of this approach just prove my point Business process interoperability, Universal Enterprise Infrastructure, BPI Project, Initiative (enterprise), Etc. are all concepts coined by n3p and hence correspond to its own approach and own vision of this field. My point is of course not to contest this organization good faith or noble goals, but I believe that the validity of this approach must be proved outside WP, before it being published here, otherwise this will be considered WP:NOR.--Khalid hassani 20:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
See this news article [1] for a description of the BPM 2.0 (a neologism I know) concept which details BPM without programming. It kind of makes the BPI concept redundant. Ansell 23:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

Just from a basic viewpoint, I think that the concept of Business Process Interoperability is much wider than just minimising human labour involvement. This article is focusing on a subset of the entire BPI range of possibilities. Is the single definition that we have on this article really an accepted maximum scope by most people. From reading a few of the references it seems that the overall possibilities may have the minimisation criteria as an end product, but they don't even mention it as a defining factor. Ansell 03:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/s/Talk%7EBusiness_process_interoperability_5f99.html"