...
Common core business activity (and matching process) sets
Discussions around attribute management extend in to discussing specific industry classifications and activity classifications. More work is needed, however, to find the bridge between industry and activity and look at classication on a process level. For interoperability, we need an agreed upon taxonomy and semantics for these process patterns just as much as we need the agreement for the sets of attributes that are managed down in the bowels of these generic processes.
Example:
While Enterprise Architecture Frameworks like the US FEAF (and the Australian and NZ EAF's are based on the US FEAF) segment down to Services and Functions, there is no work (known to me) going on to standardise the terms to describe generic business process patterns. For example in NZ govt Internal Affairs Dept, if you look across our services, you can distil the process patterns supporting those services down to: Grant, Register, Monitor, Advise, Enforce, Legislate, Collect.
Each of these functional process patterns, contains a sub-sets and super-sets of attributes.
Work in this space
- SEMIC.EU was a starter project but closed in 2009, now kind of replaced by ISA
Common Semantics and terminology
...