Re: [ebxml-bp] Submission of a research paper introducing a new model for Multi-party collaobration

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

Team,

The other part of this puzzle is process flows.

In the binary collab' its implicit.

In these multi-party flow - its not - needs
to be shown.

I'm seeing that the fork/join mechanism can
provide this - but I need to confirm this.

I'll work on the AutoTech scenario to see
how this can be accommodated / done
with the current BPSS XSD.  If anyone
has any specific thoughts on same -
please let me know!

Will report back once I've had a chance
to look at this in the next few days.

Thanks, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
To: <martin.me.roberts@bt.com>; <jeanjadu@Attachmate.com>;
<monica.martin@sun.com>; <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 12:15 PM
Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] Submission of a research paper introducing a new
model for Multi-party collaobration




Martin Roberts writes:

"JJ,
This reflects my approach,  I feel we could easily enable a more
fully capable Multiparty Colab in the way you describe without having to
explain much more than the current BSI.
The only issue I see is that we would want to allow a party to
be half way through a transaction with one party and initiate a
transaction with some one else."

Dale> Yes, this is definitely something we need to figure out how to
notate. Can we add another flow construct to represent this
type of dependency? We should definitely allow this one to nest!


If by simply making the Multiparty and Binary different in only
the number of roles we can achieve this I feel we should go for it.

Dale> Definitely agree that we should view Multiparty and Binary as
specializations, differing in multiplicity of Roles mainly.