Stephano:
Thans for all the precisions
>>I have lost some of the latest developments on BPML, so what I
>>am going to say may be "technically" not completely up-to-date.
>>Nevertheless I hope that the "meaning" will not suffer.
>>
>>1. From a BSI perspective I may have explained myself in a
>> wrong way; in my mind the BSI should enforce whichever
>> semantic is described by a CPA; so, if the semantic is
>> the one of collaborations built using transactions, this
>> is what should be done.
[JJ] Yes, and consequently, isolate the internal systems from the
details of the CPA: if all is well don't tell me anything, just notify
me of exceptions (unauthenticated users, wrong message formats, timeout,
out of sequence messages, ...)
>>2. The BSI should, whenever possible, be directly derivable
>> from the CPA.
>> As far as I understand the problem, the only information
>> required to make the BSI fully automated is the mapping
>> of the "messages" to some internal action.
>> Not always it is "possible" to map a message to the
>> execution of some legacy in an automated fashion. But the
>> BSI software could, in those case, function possibly as
>> a mailbox.
[JJ] Actually, mapping is a responsibility that fits well BPMS as a
broker of very disparate entities, so I would not necessarily put that
in the BSI unless it is a preliminary mapping (e.g. Flat file attachment
to some XML).
>>3. It is important, in order to have a BSI, to describe
>> a protocol for accountability of the shared process.
>> What I mean is that having the BSI on both sides, it
>> will be important that each partner may be able to
>> ask to the other about the status of what it is doing.
[JJ] yes, this is definitely a responsibility of the BSI though it is
hard to implement in practice.
>>4. I am not sure I understand the initial distinction JJ
>> made about BPML going in the w/s direction and loosing
>> the B2B bus.
[JJ] The problem is that the semantics and protocol of a business
transaction does not land well in the web service concept. For instance,
in BPSS you send a request and waiting for a response. In the mean time,
two acceptance signals can flow back before you actually receive the
response. This is done for good reason: non repudiation, guaranteed
message delivery (at the business level). Also a response in BPSS is one
of many possible formats. Lastly, a business transaction has a series of
possible exceptions which must be handled at the process or enterprise
system level (clean up). For all these reasons, I think that a business
transaction should be a first class citizen in the BPML metamodel, just
like web services are.
>> I may be certainly wrong, but I think that the BSI will
>> be, in itself, a Web Service.
>> - is accessable via SOAP (w/A)
>> - is discoverable via UDDI (and RegRep)
>> - is describable via the CPP/CPA...
>> and I think that it could "reflect" some WSDL
>>
>> What changes between the ebXML as we see today and the
>> w/s as we see today, is the "process". In ebXML the BSI
>> executes a shared process; this requirement is not yet
>> formalized (maybe it will never be or it will...) for
>> w/s.
>>
>> The work that JJ and Antoine did in BPML was to show
>> how to "link" the BPSS with the BPML.
>>
>> JJ, could you pls better explain which is the hole
>> you see?
>>
>>5. I like the separation JJ makes in BPSS between the
>> protocol-related things and the process-related
>> things.
>> But, in my understanding, these two views are not
>> separated and live well together. I think that the
>> fact that BPSS specifies protocol-related things is
>> not to be removed but, actualy, could help in
>> better configuring the underlying system.
[JJ] Sorry for the confusion, I never said it should be removed, I just
meant that the internal systems do not care about the details of the
protocol. Only exceptions should be escalated for further processing as
they impact the "business process".
[JJ] Cheers,
[JJ]
----------------------------------------------------------------
The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
