Re: [ebxml-bp] BPSS evolution

[Mayilraj Krishnan <mkrishna@cisco.com>]

JJ
Good thoughts.
I think we should do both 1.a and 1.b.
That way BPSS should extend the control flow beyond the restrictions of
ws-chor cdl language.

Thanks
Mayilraj
At 08:25 PM 11/2/2003 -0800, Jean-Jacques Dubray wrote:
> hi:
>  
> here is a list of possible directions to evolve
> ebXML BPSS:
>  
> 1. Control flow: 1.01 / 1.1 BPSS control is
> based on modified UML  activity diagram semantics. This is a bit
> limiting and UML is changing these semantics in UML 2.0
>     a. we could liaise with
> ws-chor and see if we could reference a ws-chor definition for a business
> transaction, binary and multiparty collaboration 
> definitions.
>     b. we could look at the work
> of Will Van Der Aalst if liaison with ws-chor is not 
> possible
> 2. Business Transactions: 1.01 / 1.1 BPSS BT
> Message Exchange Pattern is not general enough
>     We could extend the
> definition of BT (or other concepts) via different MEPs
> 3. Business Transaction Protocol: 1.01/1.1
> Embedded in the BPSS spec
>     a. we could liaise with
> ws-caf or other relevant BTP groups and specify their usage in the
> context of BPSS rather than 
> 4. Specify a WSDL binding for the BSI: 1.01/1.1
> currently no work has been done in this direction.
> 5. Allow for a mixed mode: business transaction
> / web service within a collaboration definition. 
> 6. Orchestration / Choreography / Collaboration
> architecture and bindings
>     Today there is still a lot
> of confusion on these concepts. We need to provide a better picture on
> how these concepts play together in a common architecture.
>  
> 7. I have a few more but I would like for other
> to propose them
>  
> It would be good also if we could surface the
> issue of web services alignement to all ebXML working 
> groups.
>  
> Best regards,
>
> Jean-Jacques Dubray 
> attachmate 
> 3617 131st Ave 
> Bellevue, WA 98006 
> tel: 425-649-6584 
> Cell: 508-333-7634 
>