Re: [ebxml-bp] Roberts 2/16/2004: [RSD] #0028 Provide Example Text from CPPA onMapping

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

DRRW@

Dale,

I see your here cuts to the heart of this.  Can the idea of 'dot' notion
for combining role elements be a path to a solution?  Software can
check that the role path then includes the authorization for a 
specific combination.  At the CPA level you store all the applicable
role combo's then for each participant.

Thanks, DW

dwm@
------------ Excerpt from original text ---------------------------
The main reason I think we CPPAers have wanted BinaryCollaborations as a
restriction within BPSS, is that otherwise we cannot see which Roles map
to what final Requesting/Responding Activities. I think if we manage to
straighten out the Role "binding" problem, we will largely not have to
worry about CPPA needing BinaryCollaborations. It might resurface,
however, if the BusinessTransaction extensions involve primitives that
are multiparty/multirole.

We ebMS and ebCPPA mainly need 4 clear points of alignment:
Service values
Action values
Role values
Instance identifiers (allowing for shallow test for equality,
and not deep equality by some infoset structure matching approach).

@dwm

@DRRW