Re: [ebxml-bp] BPSS executability and where it ends

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

Serm,

There's two things here.

1) we are looking at having metadata added to BPSS to better
    support visual diagramming.  Specifically in this area is
    denoting flow linkage and association between steps.
    This will help business partners share visual diagrams of their
    collaborations.

2) The other detail - transaction business rules - this has previously
     been delegated to the transaction layer - so that the BPSS passes
     the context to the transaction layer - and then that handles this
     and returns a success / fail.

     The OASIS CAM specification is exactly designed to do this -
     and the original requirements came in large part from the need
     to provide this functionality for BPSS.   Also the CAM template
     is designed so it can be "pretty printed" using XSLT - so that
     business users can review business rules as a HTML document.

     I'd be happy to setup a formal liaison to the OASIS CAM TC
     once we are ready to proceed with that part of the interchange
     design.

Thanks, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Boonserm (Serm) Kulvatunyou" <serm@nist.gov>
To: <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] BPSS executability and where it ends


> I have a comment here that I would like to hear comments.
>
> I think I totally understand the role of BPSS in the B2B Collaboration and
> its functionality and scope as Monica quoted from the charter makes a
total
> sense to me. However, when I came to think again about this scope against
> the ebXML vision of dynamically composing, configuring, and execution of
the
> collaboration, the expressiveness of BPSS alone may not sufficiently
> facilitate that. If the two parties have no way of seeing and dynamically
> aligning/agreeing with some underlying business logic (which will likely
be
> not apparent in the BPSS), I think such vision will not be realizable.
> Parties agreeing on the same BPSS only agree on the format and data (not
> taking into account infra level) to be exchanged and not the behaviors
> associated with the data. I am not sure if I took the ebXML vision too
> further away. I understand that some dynamic configuration alignment can
> happen up to some level like MSH.
>
> Taking a PO example. Even if a PO biz process says that it is the exchange
> of ProcessPO and AckPO, there can be a lot of other underlining agreement
to
> be done off-line. Like if your shipment has more than 5% scrap, I will
> return. Will anything like BPEL, etc support this or is there some way to
> engineer this into the BPSS as of now?
>
> Comments?
>
> -serm
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jussi Lemmetty" <jussi.lemmetty@republica.fi>
> To: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
> Cc: <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 3:09 PM
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] BPSS executability and where it ends
>
>
> Monica,
>
> I wasn't completely clear expressing what I meant with BPSS describing
'one
> side'.
> How I was trying to visualize the BPSS-configured layer was that it acts
as
> a curtain between organizations stage and backstage. BPSS describes what
> happens on the (visible to partners) stage. Whatever is bound to the
> curtains backstage, is not necessarily visible to others. Since BPSS is
> shared among partners and they might have different runtime-systems, any
> binding-information (which might be partner-specific) should be in
separate
> definition instance.
>
> I hope this clarified what I had in mind. I was probably thinking the
> deployment-time too much when writing :)
>
> Jussi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM]
> Sent: 4. marraskuuta 2003 16:58
> To: Jussi Lemmetty
> Cc: ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] BPSS executability and where it ends
>
>
> Jussi Lemmetty wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'm yet another one to agree on the executability of BPSS, meaning that
> BPSS-instance should contain enough information to be deployable without
> excessive configuration-phase.
> >
> >What comes to the definitions of process/transaction binding to back-end
> systems, it's getting quite case/implementation/technology dependant.
> >
> >During the first teleconference, I mentioned having done something with
> BPSS and agents (one kind of approach to execution).
> >Here's a link:
http://www.kanetti.fi/~juslem/docs/Bridging%20the%20gap.pdf
> >
> >My point is, that there are several ways in practice to produce the
runtime
> for the BPSS (as expressed already here on the list), so clarification to
> the boundaries of executability is something I'm eager to see agreed upon.
> How I see it, BPSS is deployable configuration describing one side of the
> organizations public process and specifications that are defining the
> binding to back-end systems should be considered/recommended but not
> anchored.
> >
> >
> mm1: Jussi, typically BPSS describes the shared view of both parties,
> not just one party. This is in contrast to lower level views from one
> party's perspective such as described in WS-BPEL. If you look at your
> charter and previous specification versions:
>
> "The ebXML Business Process Specification Schema provides for the
> nominal set of specification elements necessary to specify a
> collaboration between business
> partners, and to provide configuration parameters for the partners’
> runtime systems in order to execute that collaboration between a set of
> e-business software components." (ebBPSS, v1.05).
>
> Bindings may be within our scope as defined in the charter, although the
> first primary focus is the specification itself (The bindings may be
> expressed in white papers or other position documents).
>
> "The ebBP TC may identify bindings to support the business process
> instance and ultimately the run-time execution. A binding (map) could
> enable other executable process mechanisms to drive enterprise
> applications where ebBP controls (rather than create) service behavior."
>
> I believe if we can first place boundaries that differentiate
> computability and execution, we can lay the groundwork for future
> development.
> Thanks.
>
>
> >Cheers,
> >Jussi
> >
> >--------------------------------------------
> >Jussi Lemmetty
> >Product Manager
> >Republica Corp., R&D Labs
> >Ohjelmakaari 1
> >40500 Jyväskylä
> >Finland
> >E-mail: jussi.lemmetty@republica.fi
> >Tel. +358 (0)443 011 146
> >http://www.republica.fi/
> >http://www.x-fetch.com/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>