Re: [regrep] Dynamic Discovery/Binding/Invocation

From
Matthew MacKenzie <>
Date
2004-04-20T21:02:56+00:00
ID
Thread
Re: [regrep] Dynamic Discovery/Binding/Invocation
Let your work speak for itself, David.

I've never seen you say "CAM doesn't do that.".  That concerns me.

-Matt

On Apr 20, 2004, at 6:10 PM, David RR Webber wrote:

Matt,

The CAM design has been worked on for three+ years - and

develops from the original Fusion of Five vision from XML/edi.

not to mention hard won fielded application in tough realworld

scenarios.

You may scoff - but fundamentally I've personally gone

through two US Patents awards - development of a

transformation product that is extensively used today - and

over fifteen years of looking at and building eBusiness

solutions.

Add to that the work experience of the CAM team

members too - and its not surprising that this is a

comprehensive solution set.

It may just look like a jumble of XML tag soup - but

there is precise purpose and reasons underpinning the

design and the approach.

I make no apologies for the fact that this thing

kicks ass hard - and also delivers on key areas of the

ebXML / ebSOA stack that were missed in the

original ebXML V1.0 roll-out.

People talked of automatic configurable business

services downloadable from the registry - but

when it came to the implementation details -

handwaving was much in evidence.

Staying focused on completing the task is

what separates out our ebXML work from

the rest.

Cheers, DW.

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

From: "Chiusano Joseph" <>

To: "Matthew MacKenzie" <>

Cc: "David RR Webber" <>; <>

Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:45 PM

Subject: Re: [regrep] Dynamic Discovery/Binding/Invocation

Whatever it doesn't do, BCM does.

:P

lol

Matthew MacKenzie wrote:

Wow, CAM does everything.

Tell me David, what does it not do?

:-)

-Matt

On Apr 20, 2004, at 5:11 PM, David RR Webber wrote:

Joe,

The later - dynamic interface configuration - is the domain

of CAM - acting as a service of registry.

We can do one part of this already. Given a context

configuration - you apply your context values - and

CAM will adjust the interchange content accordingly.

Example - if you are a supplier in Canada to GM in

Detroit - you need to provide cross-border shipment

information - while if you are in Michigan - you don't.

That's the point of the work on Context for BPSS

V2.0 that we have in place.

This then allows you to configure a catalogue of

business process components into which you put -

CPA, Context, BPSS and CAM templates - and

when discovery occurs - the new partner can

configure the Context and load the templates into

their software and start using it.

The second part of your scenario - automatic

interchange linkage is also facilitated by CAM

templates - and here is where the UID mechanism

is vital. This allows you to have agent software

that matches UIDs in target and source nouns.

Then there are the noun definitions themselves -

we're working on that in SCM at the moment.

That is the other piece of the puzzle needed by

CAM and the agent - to be able to automatically

pull the facet and predicate information for a

given UID of a noun - and then apply those

rules to the mapping. The OWL work in SCM

is also very important to be able to classify and

relate like / equivalent / and similar parts so the

software agent can determine that a UID from

one domain is actually related to a UID from

another.

The peices are there - what is needed as ever

is projects and funding to validate it and complete

the detail implementation.

DW

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

From: "Chiusano Joseph" <>

To: <>

Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 2:29 PM

Subject: [regrep] Dynamic Discovery/Binding/Invocation

The following question might sound silly coming from someone

who knows

our spec so well, but it's a usage scenario that I just had to

begin to

think about.

Is anyone using ebXML Registry for dynamic

discovery/binding/invocation

of Web Services? More specifically:

- A Web Service would dynamically discover another Web

Service;

- It would use the discovered Web Service's interface

definitions (e.g.

WSDL document) to dynamically construct message definitions

that conform

to the discovered Web Service's interface definitions;

- It would then map its data to these messages definitions and

invoke

the discovered Web Service;

If no one is using an ebXML Registry this way, how close are

we to this?

It seems to me that the "dynamically constructed messages

definitions",

and - even more so - the dynamic mapping, would be

challenging. Does

this fall more under semantic technologies? If so, will it

ever be

possible?

Thanks,

Joe

--

Kind Regards,

Joseph Chiusano

Associate

Booz | Allen | Hamilton

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/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.

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/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.

___________________________

Matthew MacKenzie

Senior Architect

IDBU Server Solutions

Adobe Systems Canada Inc.

http://www.adobe.com/products/server/



+1 (506) 871.5409

-- 

Kind Regards,

Joseph Chiusano

Associate

Booz | Allen | Hamilton

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/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.

___________________________

Matthew MacKenzie

Senior Architect

IDBU Server Solutions

Adobe Systems Canada Inc.

http://www.adobe.com/products/server/



+1 (506) 871.5409