RE: [ebxml-bp] WSDL / BPSS proposal

[<martin.me.roberts@bt.com>]

IN my simplistic brain I am unable to carry all the variations that are
being proposed for the various links to various possible standards.  I
therefore would like to make a simple proposal that might enable us to
focus on the BPSS yet allow for sensible extensions.

	1) the BPSS does not attempt to go beyond the process layer that
we currently understand
	2) We rebuild the schema to allow for hooks for extensions at
most levels. 
		This would include both the ability to replace an item
using the Ventian Blind substitution group method as well as defined
hooks for lower level artifacts, such as the WSDL definitions.
	3) We produce a white paper showing how extensions work and
possibly prime it with an extension for WSDL
	4) we explicity define BusinessTransaction as an abstract class
to be overloaded with subclasses for each of the 6 known transcation
patterns, where the main difference is the default values for the flags
- This would allow for two things a) overriding of flag values even when
using a pattern and b) external new patterns for cases where the 6
existing do not work.

	This would be a major departure from 1.01 and 1.05 and even UN
1.1 but would lay a great foundation for other work in the future.

	What do people think?

Martin Roberts 
xml designer, 
BT Exact
e-mail: martin.me.roberts@bt.com 
tel: +44(0) 1473 609785  clickdial
fax: +44(0) 1473 609834
Intranet Site :http://twiki.btlabs.bt.co.uk/twiki



-----Original Message-----
From: Anders W. Tell [mailto:anderst@toolsmiths.se] 
Sent: 12 February 2004 10:58
To: Jean-Jacques Dubray
Cc: ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] WSDL / BPSS proposal


Jean-Jacques Dubray wrote:

>You write that a OperationActivity is different from BT/BTA, since it
>looks very similar to RequestResponseTransaction could you elaborate on

>the reasons why ?
>JJ>I responded to that in an ealier email (direction cannot be inverted
>like a BT in two different BTAs with opposite roles)
>
>secondly how does OperationActivity handle semantics and obligations
>related to dispatch, reach?
>
>JJ>What do mean with dispatch and reach?
>  
>

As defined by UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce with Guide to 
Enactment (1996), with additional article 5 /bis/ as adopted in 1998 
Article 15 and others.
<http://www.uncitral.org/english/texts/electcom/ml-ecomm.htm>

Basically these legal conventions and other electronic act points out 
the importance of separating sending and receiving of data messages. The

"legal effect" may be defined at 6 point
1 Request.dispatch
2 Request.reach
3 Responce.dispatch
4 Responce.reach
5-6 Who has the risk when a data message has been dispatched and when it

has reached is also relevant.

All above considerations affects a BT outcome. It appears that 
specifying protocol error or method invocation exeception is not enough 
in an eCommerce environment.

/Anders




/anders

-- 
/////////////////////////////////////
/ Business Collaboration Toolsmiths /
/ website: <www.toolsmiths.se>      /
/ email: <anderst@toolsmiths.se>    /
/ phone: +46 8 545 885 87           /
/ mobile: +46 70 546 66 03          /
/////////////////////////////////////