RE: [ebxml-bp] Re: [ebxml-bp-comment] Public Comment

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Monica / Radha,

 

One thing that is consistently missed WRT the CPA - is the top down trading partner management aspects.

 

Most people - given the high degree of technical tagness in the CPA itself - tend to have the bottom up view of CPA.

 

My experience is focusing on how to use the Registry, CPA and ebMS together to faciliate partner control / collaboration of wide communities.  So partners can use CPA ID as a linkage mechanism that controls access, versioning and interoperability.

 

This is an architecture and design realization that needs to happen.  So the CPA is performing as an orchestration linkage tool - rather than just a set of config' parameters for your ebMS...

 

Also - from the BSI perspective - we need profiles and templates - of standard sets of configurations - such as "Normal Transmit", "Urgent Msg", "Low priority Msg".  You can do this right now with CPA - but it does not jump out at you as *the* preferred way of making CPA easier to do.

 

I guess a few pointers then on the BSI side - support context and role; use templates; versioning; and exploit the feature set the architecture provides to do top down collaboration integration.

 

The engineers can then take all the wonderful tagness available today - and figure out how to provide that in a simple and coherent way that mere mortals can use (hopefully!).

 

Your comments are definately helpful in guiding how to package and present the concepts so that can happen.

 

And of course - there are things - like the collaboration engine - that we are scheduled to work in much more detail on for V3.0 now that V2.02 if finally in the books!

 

Thanks, DW

 

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:
> [ebxml-bp] Re: [ebxml-bp-comment] Public Comment
> From: Monica J
> Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
> Date: Tue, February 21, 2006
> 11:59 am
> To: radha.arur@polaris.co.in
> Cc:
> ebxml-bp-comment@lists.oasis-open.org, ebXML
> BP
> <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
> Radha,
> First we
> appreciate your comments and once we discuss in the ebBP team, 
> we
> may ask that you attend a call to investigate your comments further.
> Thank you. See some very initial comments
> inline.
>
> >Comment from: radha.arur@polaris.co.in
> >Name:
> Radha Arur
> >Title: AVP
> >Organization: PSLL
> >Regarding
> Specification:
> >
> >Feedback on ebxmlbP ver 2.0
> >
> >Good points:
> >1. The distinction between
> Collaboration, Message  AND the interaction and dependancies
> between Business Process Interface and Message Interface are very well
> articulated. 
> >
> >2. The definition of  types of
> Gateways and the distinction between Binary and Multiparty
> collaboration are very clearly defined. 
> >  
> >
> mm1:
> Thank you.
>
> >Suggestion for improvements:
> >1.Though the
> distinction and the dependencies between BSInterface and MSInterface
> are defined, it is not clearly specified (though suggested) how the MSI
> can be used without BSI.  i.e Does the BSI remain redundant in that
> situation? 
> >  
> >
> mm1: Whether the business process
> delegates to the messaging 
> infrastructure is an implementation
> choice rather than dictated by the 
> specification. And, whether
> these are used together or individually is 
> also the same. Given the
> current capabilities of messaging services, 
> there are capabilities
> that are expected by the business process that 
> are not supported.
> Examples include: Acceptance Acknowledgements after 
> business
> processing on the business document is completed (either
> successfully or otherwise). The ebBP team has had discussions
> surrounding:
>
>   1. More specification of the handlers
> involved for messaging and the
>      business service,
> which I believe is important in your question.
>    
>  This further specification or definition likely would fall
> outside
>      of the core technical specification. No
> decision has been made
>      whether it would be part
> of a primer or how-to guide, an
>      additional white
> paper or other document. The glue has been seen
>    
>  to be the CPP/A between the two.
>   2. To what degree
> specification should be made. One key point in our
>    
>  discussions has been the optimal balance between
> flexibility
>      (given what is used at runtime) and
> the constraints placed on
>      implementations if the
> definition assumes particular technologies.
>      For
> example, we discussed at length that the BSI could be a
>  
>    gateway, a service, middleware, an application or any
> combination
>      of these (or other possibilities
> we've not specified).
>
> >2.Relation with other specification –
> >    i.e how the CPA and CVV should interact with CQI
> – Customer Information Quality TC recommendated work?  
> >
>  
> >
> mm1: I'd direct this question to CPPA team. I'll
> forward to that team 
> and cc: you.
>
> >3. CPA actually
> specifies the interface with access points defined by the business
> process specification. Elaboration / clarification on  this
> sentence? Does it mean BSI is CPA? 
> >
> mm1: The CPPA
> articulates the technical mechanisms that configure a 
> runtime
> system and encourage interoperability between two parties that 
> may
> use different applications or software from different vendors. The
> CPP/A defines the way two parties// will interact in performing the
> chosen business collaborations. The BSI understands business
> collaborations, the associated BTA, the business state, and the
> encompassing conditions, constraints, and expectations of the
> parties 
> involved. The CPP/A currently supports the notion of
> business 
> transactions between collaborating roles. For example, the
> CPP/A 
> currently can provide a reference to timing parameters to a
> business 
> collaboration but technical mechanisms are yet to be
> defined to 
> accommodate (in CPP/A and in the underlying messaging).
> Another key 
> example is for web services. The business process
> defines a fairly 
> succinct way to map business transaction
> activities to an abstract name 
> for a web service operations. The
> technical mechanisms for the 
> interface, the namespace, access, etc.
> are actually defined by the 
> configurable capabilities in the CPP/A
> (as they should be). If this 
> further description assists in
> answering your question, is it sufficient 
> to articulate in the
> appendices to enable understanding by our user
> communities?
>
> >4. Rules for the Collaboration Monitoring
> engine is left too much to the discretion of the application and has
> not specified any framework or guideline and may also take input how
> this interacts with F2F activity.  i.e How the messaging and
> collaboration layer work together is not specified or not easily
> tracable. 
> >  
> >
> mm1: See the previous comment that
> the implementation is not dictated 
> and why. That does not mean
> however we could provide additional guidance 
> for collaboration
> monitoring. In an anticipated subsequent version, we 
> intend to
> expand the status visibility capabilities, for example. 
> Whether or
> not such specification between the collaboration and 
> messaging
> layer should be in the ebBP specification is an open question.
> Given what I have articulated thus far, a primer or white paper may
> be 
> the more appropriate mechanism. What are your thoughts and
> suggestions?
>
> >5.Distinction between Business message and
> signal and the relation with BSI may be explicitly mentioned. 
> >
>  
> >
> mm1: The BSI understands both and their relevance to
> success or failure 
> (whether technical and/or business). If you look
> at Section 3.6.3 in the 
> technical specification (on public web site:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=16455&wg_abbrev=ebxml-bp
> [pdf in .zip]), it discusses how business messages with an
> associated 
> business document and business signals relate to success
> or failure. If 
> we link these two discussions in the Appendices,
> Appendix A, will that 
> increase your understanding? The
> specification, appendices, and the 
> schema and documentation are
> used together.
>
> >6. The difference between Substantive
> business message and normal business message since both refers to the
> same in many situations. 
> >  
> >
> mm1: We can
> increase the description to make this consistent. I will 
> work
> through in the specification where changes may be required. This is
> editorial in nature.
>
> >7. Explanation of Relevance of
> state synchronization and state alignment may need to be
> mentioned.
> >  
> >
> mm1: In Section 3.4.2 (see
> reference above for link), we do describe 
> this. I will go through
> the specification and see where this is 
> underspecified. We are
> clear in the specification that the expectations 
> of the parties and
> their shared understanding is imperative for business 
> collaboration.
> State alignment is key to enable that. I'll provide 
> further comments
> once I go through the specification more fully to 
> address your
> question.
>
> >8.Relationship to repository is very much at
> abstract level. May/ should  provide a better implementation
> recommendation. 
> >  
> >
> mm1: This may be an
> excellent opportunity for a profile. We have had 
> some initial
> interest in one related to ebXML Registry/Repository.
>
> >9. A
> sample implementation on how the specification can be used between
> applications in the organization (especially for a complex business
> transaction ) with the use of Fork, Decision and Joint Gateway will be
> really useful. 
> >  
> >
> mm1: We do have this in an
> example on the public web site (criminal 
> justice in the
> Netherlands). We will have more UBL v2.0 supported ebBP 
> definitions
> that do the same likely very soon. See:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=16436&wg_abbrev=ebxml-bp.
> I'd encourage your further comment to this initial set of responses.
> We 
> are very appreciative for your response and continued interest in
> ebBP.
>
> Thank you.