[ebBP] 5/24/2004: Meeting Minutes for 24 May 2004 [RSD] Includes WI-12OpActivity

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

OASIS.ebBP.WI-12-WSDL Support;
Topic|;
Point|Meeting Minutes for 24 May 2004;

mm1@
Meeting minutes 24 May 2004, attached. Sorry for the omission. I will 
also upload them to Documents folder on the web site.
Thanks.
@mm1

ebBP TC Teleconference
24 May 2004

Present:
Dodds
Dubray
Fischer
Martin
Nagahashi
St. Amand
Tell

Regrets:
Moberg
Pradhan
Webber

Agenda:
1. Approval of 10 and 17 May meeting Minutes.
No quorum.

2. Final vote results for three ballots closed 14 May 2004.

**We will need to re-initiate these votes as quorum vote is required.

St. Amand: Ask people to specifically ask if they have questions, concerns or issues.
Make vote available via Kavi and give >1 reminder.

No other questions.

3. Resolve discussion surrounding the OperationActivity and any relationship to business transactions, Dubray, Yunker and Tell.

Dubray: Fundamental differences between ebXML and web services see the world.
WS like to express all operations for a given endpoint. There is no correlation, unit of work concept, etc.
BPSS looks at this differently; BSI decides what collaboration instance that a message belongs to and resolve all
headers, signals, notifications, etc. Interaction is a collaboration with a business transaction.
Those two views of the world are fundamentally different. However, it is easy to think that in a collaboration you wish
to invoke a web service operation. Another option is to map collaboration to WSDL operations. The value of that isn't proven.
This should be studied more fully in the long-term. In the short term, enable a web-services capable entity.
Tell: Support alignment with web services but with different approach.
Method invocation is missing in legal transactional concepts.
There is a fundamental view of IT system and req-response - we must concentrate on information exchange.
All information exchange is legally relevant. Web services are inequipped to handle legally relevant implications.
BT and BC are proxies that point to legally relevant events.
Martin: How do you get to state alignment if web services do not understand signals?
Tell: This is a QoS issue. An invocation maps to a req-response with no signals. The binding is to the CPP/A.
OperationActivity does not resolve this problem. Special constraint pattern could be used.
Don't we mix business semantics and implementation by doing this?
Additional parameters on operation in specialized BT pattern.
Martin: What about the reality of misunderstanding in the marketplace of business semantics and web services.
Tell: This supports specialized BT pattern.
Dubray: Override with substitution sets in BT pattern. WS = BT. Can't be overridden in any way. It can't support role changes
or substitution, signals, etc. Semantically, behavior, etc. WS can't work with BSI.

Substitution
Roles
BT pattern
Signals
BSI
Legal relevance

St. Amand: Compromise may not be possible. What is the primary objective?
Martin: See February F2F notes.
Dodds: In another techology conference, CxOs indicated their developers don't understand business process
and CxOs didn't understand data.
Fischer: Agree with Dodds. Incredible amount of confusion exists in user community around BPM.
Nagahashi: Question to Dubray, about incorporating WSDL into ebBP.
A one-way BT != WS operation. Web services don't have idea of business signals.
No business signals exist in ws - different type of BT. Should we go down a path where ebBP is not aware of web
services (implicit use). [1]
We could map a BT to a WS via CPPA with guidance from ebBP.
Could the document envelope incorporate a web service?
Is one invocation related to document envelope?
Dubray: A web service operation can map to BT but what do you achieve? May main point of concern is that a web
service lacks of business signals and is not a bus transaction. How do you add transaction semantics to web service operation?
The business protocol is missing in web services. How do you achieve state alignment?
Martin: What about the dependencies to other specs?
Tell: Isn't that the purpose of the CPPA?
Dubray: No, that is not correct?
Martin: Aren't these additional dependencies? What if the CPPA is not present?
Tell: This argument is there whether or not a BT pattern or OperationActivity is used.
Dubray: If we do a business transaction patterns, we are unable to incorporate additional layers of web services stack.
We will have patterns-of-patterns. In addition, a BT cannot be rolled back and web services have a fundamental premise
regarding compensation and rolling back.

[1] This was similar to an extension proposal by Martin Roberts. See detailed summary issued on WI-12 24 May 2004
by M. Martin.

Reference:

No time to discuss item 4
4. Finalize what attributes should be changed to elements to allow for conditionality, [2] Moberg, Tell and Abrell (if available). [from 17 May 2004].
Concentrate on Abrell and Swenson feedback in March 2004: Discrete, set of values, range.

[2] Primarily related to WI 55 that triggered this discussion. 

Delay until next call.

5. Other Business
Announced there will be no meeting 31 May 2004 (Memorial Day weekend in US).

Martin: The ebXML Implementation, Interoperability and Conformance (IIC) has been evaluating ebBP semantics for interoperability testing.
I will send information about this and ask for inputs or feedback to that team.

Adjourned just after 9 a.m. PDT, 24 May 2004.

ACTIONS:
MARTIN: SEND IIC INFORMATION. DONE 24 MAY 2004.
MARTIN: SEND OPERATION SUMMARY. DONE 24 MAY 2004.
MARTIN: POST MINUTES RELATED TO OPERATION SUMMARY. DONE 24 MAY 2004.