Re: [ebxml-bp] ebXML Business Processes XML instance document forexecution?

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Everyone,
Could everyone participating in this thread take on the challenge to get 
together and compile a combined summary of what you have discussed 
here.  JJ, given your comments and ideas today, I believe you could 
input as well. 

Topic: Business process execution and BPSS
Some potential boundaries:

    * Computable business process description between trading partners
    * Expressed in the BSI (although I see here there are some differing
      ideas about that)
    * Robust enough to provide an abstract definition of which an
      executable process could be generated

Thoughts?

>John Yunker: The BPSS must be "executable" in the sense that states and their associated state transitions are well formed and fully defined.  Success criteria would be the ability to simulate the entire business process and identify model problems such as unreachable business actions and dead-end paths.  Also, the BPSS expression execution (business process state) should be what the business users are watching, they won't be watching the BPEL expression (they wouldn't understand it).
>
>Schlegel: Tks Marty, you got it right. What I failed to add before was the main point for my comment: lets remember this "abstract definition" is not part of BPSS, so that we don't polute BPSS with it.
>  
>
>>Martin Sachs: I believe that you are really asking for some kind ofabstract definition of the interface between the ebXML specifications and the execution engine.  I agree that this is an essential part of a set of specifications like ebXML but so far, there has been little interest in defining it other than the somewhat limited information under the title "BSI" (Business Service Interface) in the BPSS and architecture documents.
>>
>>Diego Ballvé: I support the idea of BPSS instance being "executable" but I think 
>>that there's a need for a 3rd configuration document, besides BPSS 
>>and CPPA, that would link a BusinessTransaction activity with some 
>>legacy system that would generate/consume business documents (for 
>>instance a BPEL engine, as in David's example).
>>
>>I don't think that this is part of BPSS since is partner specific, 
>>not necessarily public knowledge, but a BP can't be configured to be 
>>executed by a BP engine without it - unless it is a simple exchange 
>>of static documents. Comments??
>>
>>>>Martin Sachs: In my opinion, the BPSS instance document should contain enough 
>>>>information to be executable.  I believe that that has always been 
>>>>the intent of the ebXML side of things.  Strictly speaking, "executable" is the
>>>>wrong term. The BPSS instance document should be able to be deployed into
>>>>the runtime system.  In other words, the BPSS document should be able to
>>>>be used to configure the runtime system to execute and monitor the
>>>>business process that it describes.  That's the same idea as deploying the CPA
>>>>into the runtime system to configure it for doing business between the
>>>>two partners that agreed to that CPA.  Such a runtime system is sometimes
>>>>referred to as a BSI (business service interface) in ebXML lingo.
>>>>
>>>>Schlegel: Hi ebXML BP TC
>>>>Coming backwards from a CPA (sample Negotiation CPA) to the ebXML 
>>>>Business Process (sample Negotiation Business Process) I thought that the BP XML Instance document should have enough information to be executable.
>>>>
>>>>But for some reasons I now think that I misunderstand. Any hints where to catch up on ebXML BPSS, what it is and what it isn't? PS: I admit that I did not read any BPEL (or XLANG, WSFL) or WS-Orchestration specification but the ebXML BPSS 1.0.
>>>>        
>>>>