RSD (Multiparty collaboration)

["Jean-Jacques Dubray" <jeanjadu@Attachmate.com>]

Discussion|oasis.ebBP;
Topic|Multi-party collaboration;
Point|WI 9-10 coordination agents;
@mm1

JJ, can you please answer in more specifics to Simon's question. In our
F2F discussions and in the subsequent email traffic, we have addressed
whether or not
we allow the use of other business process definitions in the BPSS (BTA)
via the OperationActivity. This is still under discussion. The case that
Simon provides some insight as we consider this enhancement.

Martin, can you provide some additional detail to Simon?
As for the BusinessDocument, this is associated with the Business
Transaction. We discussed the logical business document, attachments,
etc and the use of Path in the F2F. There will likely be changes here.

Simon Lee wrote:

>Dear Monica,
>
>As I cant post message on the ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org mailing
list,
>could you help me to forward this message? Thanks a lot!
>
>Best Regards,
>Simon
>
>Hi All,
>
>After yesterday's learning session, I've got a more concerte idea on
BPSS
>control flow and state management. However when it comes to Multiparty
>collaboration, I still have some questions on it.
>
>In the session, JJ said: "BC doesn't require coordination; MPC requires
>separate agent for coordination (maintain state and context). You have
a
>party that may have a more central role, but there are still the
multiple
>parties. Need coordination interface (independent agent or driving
>partner)." So how could we specify this "separate agent for
coordination" of
>MPC in the BPSS? For instance, in the attached mpc example (sorry for
my bad
>drawing), how could we specify the fork and join (choreography) for the
MPC
>in BPSS?
>
>My second question goes into BusinessDocument. As I can see,
>BusinessDocument is defined as the top level element in the BPS
instance.
>Does it mean that the evaluation of Document Content (Xpath for
example)
>could be done in anywhere in the BPSS?
>
>Hope someone could help me. Thanks!
>
>Best Regards,
>Simon Lee
>  
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
JJD@
The WS-CAF specification provides a model to build context managers and
coordinators. 

I'll make a proposal at the end of the month for an architecture based
on WS-CAF.

I have not yet fully thought through the role of the coordinator, but
typically it needs to intervene when two parties execute a BTA and a
third party need to do something then, with respect to the completion of
this event.

Note that it must not be too common in business for this to happen,
right? When it is needed, the coordinator should use a signal rather
than asking the collaboration designer to create a specific message to
handle that particular transition.

I have a lot of respect for the current design and we should be very
careful in evolving it. It has an excellent execution model. The only
drawback is at design time we have to define all these binary
collaboration which hamper a global view.

@JJD

|| Could you clarify your second question? I can't understand it.
|| the root element of BPSS is Process.

@mm1