RE: [ebxml-bp] BPSS evolution

["Dick Brooks" <dick@tech-comm.com>]

Title: Message

IMHO, BPSS will be beneficial if it provides:

 

1. An intuitive *external* interface definition for each service/action pair (e.g. what a trading partner needs to invoke a service/action)

    This should include input/output parameter definitions, transport binding options (e.g. HTTP, SMTP) and possible responses.

    Ideally the external interface definition would align with WSDL, however this may not be practical for several reasons.

 

2. An intuitive *internal* definition of a workflow associated with each service/action pair (e.g. what the "system" needs to execute a business process).

   The internal  definition adheres to the interface contract defined in the external interface definition in 1.

   The internal definition is *not* accessible to external parties because it may contain sensitive information.

 

3. A graphical modeling approach that enables implementers to describe the internal and external definitions in 1 and 2 for each service/action pair

 

This is all that's needed as a starting point, IMO.

 

4. Going forward BPSS could describe more complex processes that involve multiple service/action interactions.

 

Dick Brooks
B2B Integration and Cyber Security Consultant
http://www.tech-comm.com/dbc
Mobile:602-684-1484
eFax:240-352-0714
I'm in Ireland from November 3-26 on business and am not reachable by mobile phone. Email is best.