RE: [ebxml-jc] [Fwd: Re: ebBP 8/24/2004: ebXML Spec Mapping for ebBP]

From
Jacques Durand <>
Date
2004-09-08T17:11:26+00:00
ID
Thread
RE: [ebxml-jc] [Fwd: Re: ebBP 8/24/2004: ebXML Spec Mapping for ebBP]
Title: RE: [ebxml-jc] [Fwd: Re: ebBP 8/24/2004: ebXML Spec Mapping for ebBP]

Hello:

call right now ! meeting number is different !

Event Description:

Host: Fujitsu

Toll only :  1-512-225-3050

Participant code: 716071

-----Original Message-----

From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:]

Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 9:03 AM

To: ''

Subject: [ebxml-jc] [Fwd: Re: ebBP 8/24/2004: ebXML Spec Mapping for

ebBP]

I was asked to forward the starting list of discussion items related to 

the loosely coupled ebXML specifications. We hope to have a mapping in 

ebBP v2.0 that maps elements across the specifications to assist 

implementers. This is the second part of the discussion(s).......Thanks.

>Moberg: Some comments inline.

>

>

>mm1:    * CPPA:

>          o Name/NameID

>                + Moberg/Nagahashi references:

> 

>http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200408/msg00016.html

>                  and

>http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200408/msg00023.html

>                + Does CPPA now map to more than one service

>

>Dale>> CPPA could always map to several services. So to sharpen up the

>issue that Monica

>is raising: Can a single BPSS instance contain several "Services" (in

>the sense that ebMS

>uses that term)? Does ebMS wish to update its concept of "Service" to

>align better with WSDL 

>or retain a generalized "Service" concept with WSDL as just one

>specialization? Depending

>on the resolution of these issues, we would need to explain what

>information items would contain

>"Service" values in a BPSS instance. At the moment we link "Service" to

>ProcessSpecification/@uuid

>when BPPS is used. This restricts us to saying that BPSS instance

>defines one "Service". 

>

>          o OperationsMapping

>                + Does CPPA map to more than one service (CPPA now uses

>                  the ProcessSpecification@uuid which means each BPSS

>                  instance has one service in it).

>                + How does this relate to a web service(s)?

>Dale>> OK, see above on this.

>

>          o Influence on Service and Action/ActionContext

>

>Dale>> Definitely need to reconsider Action. ebXML action concept is

>similar to the WSDL operation concept.

>One notable exception is that a WSDL Operation with a MEP of

>"request-response" will only have one name. 

>This convention derives from the early connection of WSDL to RPC, which

>is lately less and less prominent.

>[A function would have one name embracing both its input parameters as

>well as its return values.] 

>For ebXML, two Action values are associated with a WSDL r-r MEP. Is this

>a problem? We _could_ have the 

>request Action have the same value as the Response value (I think). It

>does make the monitoring mapping 

>from ebMS back to BPSS more dependent on using information about the

>document exchanged (namespace, GED 

>(global element declaration)

>

>          o isLegallyBinding: HasLegalIntent [1]

>                + Negotiation of business process BT characteristics

>

>Dale> I like the name change. Is it proposed as something negotiable as

>part of the CPPA?

>

>    * ebMS

>          o Resolve MSI / BSI questions

>

>Dale> We first need to enumerate all the questions and then decide which

>ones still cause confusion.

>This would be a significant undertaking, and maybe should be a joint

>effort.

>

>          o Inclusion of payload services in ebMS v3.0

>                + Validation parameters

>

>Dale> The extensibility of these services poses a problem of how to

>document these extensions for use with

>CPPA. 

>

>          o OperationsMapping

>                + Influence on Service (see above)

>                + Influence with web service (see above)

>

>          o Clearer definition of differences of message vs. business

>            acknowledgments

>

>[1] Like that, so thanks David.

>

>Interactive session with other ebXML groups

>

>    * ebXML IIC: They are now solidifying 3 test pseudo steps with three

>      process cases. I intend to send to the group for review as soon as

>      they are a bit further.

>    * Through JC: Liaisons

>    * Registry: Several user communities have asked about a shared

>      knowledge base.

>    * Context

>

>I've cc: other chairs so they are aware of these discussions. Comments? 

>Thank you.

>

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-jc/members/leave_workgroup.php.