Re: [ebxml-bp] [ebBP] 3/19/2004: External Content/Context Mechanism [RSD]

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

drrw@

Monica,

Maybe I went the extra mile here - just responding to everyones
"wish lists" as talked about on various conference calls that
occurred - and figuring - we can do that - for minimal
syntax cost!

My own sense is that Use Case #5 - definately is a bridge too
far for now - (eg - the idea of allowing a BPSS to start to an initial
state and then just sit there awaiting a signal to "go").

I'd be happy with a simpler two use case initial cut - that just
looks at using CAM to provide transaction validation as one,
and then transaction assembly as the other - for V2.0

In any case those are clearly the two big uses - and that
meshes nicely with ebMS V3.0 support for payload
handling service extensions.

Beyond that the functionality around the use of the bpss:
namespace in the context driver XML - can clearly be put
back to V3.0 till we feel more comfortable about that.

However - I would mention that while it may appear we
have allowed unshackled ability to change an aspect of
BPSS function at runtime - this is actually more perscribed -
since the context driver XML - with all these rules and
conditions in - has to be signed off on between
collaboration parties - so anything must pass that
level of business validation and scrutiny and agreement.

This is what I see makes the approach so powerful.
Schema syntax extensions in the BPSS level are largely
invisible to the collaboration parties - agreeing to the
CPA.  However - when you use the context driver XML -
that document must be agreed to -and the intent is that
any overrules for the BPSS are then exposed and
very apparent at that level.

Anyway - clearly we need to ensure checks-and-balances
to guarantee deterministic and predictable behaviours
from BPSS for business users.

Thanks, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
To: "ebXML BP" <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 4:34 PM
Subject: [ebxml-bp] [ebBP] 3/19/2004: External Content/Context Mechanism
[RSD]


> Discussion|OASIS.ebBP.ExternalContextMechanism;
> Topic;
>
Attachment|http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200402/msg00062.html;
>
> Point|;
>
> mm1@
> David,
> In further reviewing the earlier input you provided, Content Management
> Rendering as XML for BPSS Refinement and Business Agreement, that you
> have positioned CAM as an extension point for many things: business
> document, transaction assembly, late binding parameters, etc.
> And, in last week's meeting you referenced, you further described Figure
> 3 [1].  I am uncertain at this point that positioning CAM so broadly
> helps realize its potential strength in content assembly. Should we not
> separate the business document, content assembly influenced by context
> from the transaction patterns, control flow and other aspects defined in
> BPSS? My point is that CAM could be used to influence the business
> document which BPSS can use to assist in directing the business
> process.   Your document talks about defining the static setting of a
> BPSS and allowing, cart blanche, its redefinition, with some
> interaction/interface with BPSS, CPPA and CAM.  At this point, we have
> allowed an element reference to change the TTP that an external
> mechanism such as CAM could be used influence. However, changing the
> BPSS to assemble transactions, revise what you call a 'static setting',
> and other more complex changes do not account for the restrictions
> required to map to defined economic commitments for which BPSS may be
> responsible.
>
> I am uncertain if such a broad approach is warranted at this time.
>
> [1] See attachement reference above.
>
> @mm1
>
>
@drrw