Adding extension for BAM

[katallaxie]

Fixes #

BAM is a method to track the progress of your business processes via the occurrence of business events in your organization. Famously, many companies used BizTalk to implement BAM in their organization, but with open standards like CloudEvents this is changing. This extension is necessary, as the payload of an event is processed by primary systems, like payment or ERP and the payload of these events should not change; but the progress should be tracked in an BAM system for business users to observe the processing and to control these transactions.

Proposed Changes

• Add extension with attributes that support the implementation or use of a BAM system in an enterprise.

Release Note

Adds the business activity monitoring (BAM) known extension

[duglin]

@katallaxie thanks for this. Seems reasonable to me and I left a few minor comments in there. I'll bring this to the attention of the team on today's call. Too new to vote today but hopefully next week.

[duglin]

All, please review before tomorrow's call

[duglin]

We discussed this on yesterday's call and overall there's no concern with adding it, however @JemDay was wondering about the length of some of those attributes. Would it be possible to use bam in there to shorten them?

Just tossing this out there:

bamtxid
bampid
bamptxid
bamptxpid
bamptxstatus
bamptxcompleted

Does there need to be a bamtxcompleted too?

[katallaxie]

@duglin great suggestion.

• Updated the naming of the fields.
• Provided a more in-depth explanation of how this works (like a state machine of the business process that is controlled by the events).
• Fixed the link (they change the URL schema).

[duglin]

minor thing, but I wonder if the stuff in parens should be BAM Transaction ID? Then all of the letters in the attribute name are correlated with the descriptive name - as of now we're missing the words for "am"

[duglin]

ping @katallaxie, any thoughts on ^^ ?

[katallaxie]

@duglin I changed it to BAM as we are defining the BAM term in the header. I think then this is consistent.

[duglin]

@JemDay are you ok with the direction of the latest set of changes?

[JemDay]

LGTM :-)

[duglin]

thanks @katallaxie - and thanks for your patience.
Approved on the 5/2 call