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

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Serm.

Yes!  Its the functional behaviour, model, and usage cases that define
what BPSS really is - not the BPSS schema!

No surprises there.  The XML is merely a delivery vehicle.

So in developing a test plan - we really need to make sure that
BPSS solutions exhibit the business functional behaviours expected.
The same thing applied to the ebMS tests used by Drummond - exercising
the use scenarios and behaviour for a given context.

Thanks, DW.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Boonserm (Serm) Kulvatunyou" <serm@nist.gov>
To: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>; "Yunker, John"
<yunker@amazon.com>
Cc: "Diego Ballvé" <diego.ballve@republica.fi>; "Martin Sachs"
<msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>; "Sacha Schlegel" <sacha_oasis@schlegel.li>;
<ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] ebXML Business Processes XML instance document for
execution?


> Topic like the what are other criteria (above the bpss xml schema) making
a
> valid BPSS as mentioned by John Yuker is part of the BPSS test we are
> interested in, right?
>
> - serm
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
> To: "Yunker, John" <yunker@amazon.com>
> Cc: "Diego Ballvé" <diego.ballve@republica.fi>; "Martin Sachs"
> <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>; "Sacha Schlegel" <sacha_oasis@schlegel.li>;
> <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 6:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] ebXML Business Processes XML instance document for
> execution?
>
>
> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>