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

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

Kenji Nagahashi wrote:

>(This is actually a follow-ups for messages from John and JJ, but I couldn't
>put this in the thread, as stragely I'm not receiving ebxml-bp emails...)
>
>This is very interesting. I have been working on the same concept of
>describing business process.
>Throught the in-depth analysis of RosettaNet PIPs, I found it is difficult
>to describe real-world business processes by message exchanges.
>JJ wrote it is not completely impossible to do this BPSS 1.01, but I observe
>some pains there.
>"Invoice_is_paid" can be defined by a condition on a message for simple BPs,
>but it is not always the case. If you think of multiple payments for an
>invoice, you can't simply define "Invoice_is_paid" on a message. You have to
>calculate a sum of all the payments to tell when an invoice is payed in
>full. This requires the concept of "business object". It seems for me that
>message exchanges are the result of state change of those business objects.
>And also I looked into a supply-chain business process called VMI, and found
>it has an step of sending exactly the same message to multipe partners.
>Message centric approach is not well-suited for describing this kind of
>multi-party business processes.
>
>(I will write more on this...)
>
mm1: Thanks, Kenji. We encourage your thoughts as well as participation
in resolving the related plan items
on which the team will work (see Issues list which I would suggest be
called a progress plan - issues are misleading).
I'll be reposting the 'progress plan' by tomorrow, Thursday.

>
>Kenji
>
>John Yunkder wrote:
>
>This is an area that Business Entity Types was supposed to partially
>address, by allowing the BPSS to reference named states of business objects
>(e.g. Shipment is Delivered), and then layering the definition of
>"Delivered" (rule expression) in the business agreement (being addressed by
>UBAC).
>
>Note that you could still put the BET state expression on the BPSS
>transitions (e.g. Invoice.is_Paid AND Product.in_Shipment AND
>Shipment_is_Delivered), and provide an element in the BPSS where the states
>could have their complete definition (e.g. < 5% scrap).
>
>By allowing conceptual "business" state to guard the transitions, and then
>allowing both standard and partner specific definition of those states, we
>could truly extend the BPSS to be "business process" and not just "message
>exchange choreography".
>
>John
>
>  
>