Re: [ebxml-bp] WSDL / BPSS proposal

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

I like the direction you are thinking.  One of my main concerns is that 
BP* remains independent of other models.

Duane  

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 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
>
>  
>

-- 
Senior Standards Strategist
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://www.adobe.com