RE: [ebxml-bp] WSDL / BPSS proposal

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

Anders,
	So what you are saying is that we should in fact have seven
concrete subclasses?

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 12:51
To: ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Roberts,MME,Martin,XSG3 R
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] WSDL / BPSS proposal


Martin,

First I have to say that I support your simple proposal of defining BT 
as abstract with 6 concrete subclasses. I also support another proposal 
to create separate descriptions for each signal and message.

However the referenced document is NOT a standard it is UN model LAW 
which has been implemented more or less all over the world. In may 
countries similar/same considerations has been included even in US 
Uniform Electronic Transaction Act of 99.

In case of dispute it is most likelly that an eCommerce LAW is superior 
to an technical specification / protocol specification such as BPSS.

Dispute and Reach are prime considrations. Who did what, when and who 
fault,risk was it when something did go wrong? Who was responsible for 
making a data message reach its addressee? Simply stating a protocol 
failure is not enough.


/anders

martin.me.roberts@bt.com wrote:

>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 
>>JJ>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          /
/////////////////////////////////////