[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: ebbp 6/22/2006: Update on Novelli Process Definition Questions
As we discussed on Tuesday's call, here is the conversation via email I
have had with Dale Moberg and Cristiano Novelli. Note, we are working
the directory structure item with OASIS and two tools vendors. See
comments on security, use of Notification pattern, etc.
His in work process definition is found at:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-bp/download.php/18365/CristianoNovelli_ebBP_May06.zip
Comments surround:
1. Operational semantics in matrices and well-formedness rules
outside of the schema constraints.
2. Use of Notification pattern.
3. Use of hasLegalIntent.
Thanks.
>>> novelli: Monica,
>>> I send you my ebBP instance, with corrections and updated to
>>> ebbp-2.0.3.xsd schema.
>>> I wait feedback for eventual (probable) errors.
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> mm1: Cristiano, I am going to post these to our web site and have
>> some experts review (cc: to you). Thanks.
>
> mm2: Sorry for a bit of a delay Cristiano, traveling and off. I've
> looked the work over and have a few questions and observations (one
> noted for Dale's comment):
>
> 1. Need to look at operational semantics on the use of the BT
> patterns. For example, the recommended usage of security and
> quality when you use Commercial Transactions. These criteria are
> semantics not schema-constrained. I noticed that you define
> Requesting and Responding Business Activities under the BT with
> specific expectations in these areas and they differ in how they
> are used in the BTA. [Dale, is it recommended to consider if and,
> if so, how we constrain that a BTA is consistent with the BT of
> which is derived correct with respect to these attributes.]
novelli2: If I want, as first objective, to describe the documents
exchange only, neglecting security aspects,
which features in the BTA are unsatisfied? hasLegalIntent="true" instead
of "false" value?
Or CommercialTransaction needs to force to "true" value the security
features (isAuthorizationRequired, isIntelligibleCheckRequired,
isNonRepudiationRequired, isNonRepudiationReceiptRequired)?
monica 6/15: Look first at the pattern matrices in the specification
(for context for my comments).
1. The signals are strongly recommended for Commercial Transaction.
2. Non-repudiation of content/origin and receipt is required.
3. Default for hasLegalIntent is false. Typically (I say most often),
Commercial Transaction has legal intention and legal
enforceability applies. Read more on this point at
http://www.ebxml.org/specs/bpPATT.pdf. Part of the information in
this document is outlined in our technical specification.
4. Document security needs to be used with Commercial Transaction.
5. We don't specify quality attribute group (the set of
Quality-of-Service parameters) except on Business Action which
translates to Requesting and Responding Business Activity.
Note: Dale on #5 we may wish to consider in the future whether quality
is separate by activity or enforced in the patterns, neither of which is
the case now (AFAIK).
> mm2: 2. Why did you not use Notification pattern or did you find it
> easier
> to use request-response pairs?
novelli2: With Notification element I have a schema validation problem..
I want to describe a one-way advise BT, without response, but
Notification element requires RespondingBusinessActivity too, why?
monica 6/15: There are reasons; the TC had detailed discussions here.
See two examples (more are available June-August 2006 in public
email archives:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200506/msg00047.html
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-bp/email/archives/200507/msg00000.html
What the discussions covered:
* There is still a responding role.
* There is no Responding Business Document.
* The responder is procesing even if it occurs in an implicit way.
> mm2: 3. The same general comment applies on your use of hasLegalIntent.
novelli2: If hasLegalIntent="false", is there still incoherent situation
between BT and BTA areas?
monica 6/15: I wasn't very clear here. The hasLegalIntent exists on the
BTA. The guidance comes from the patterns and BT that are used (the
attribute doesn't exist on these two but on the BTA). Commercial
Transaction is typically legally enforceable and driven by agreement.
See matrices.
> mm2: 4. On schema location, Dale we seem to have a problem loading the
> ebbp-2.0 schema when specified in the XML instance. Here is what I
> found:
> * With:
monica 6/15: Dale, we need to check this because we should be able to
validate against the latest schema via the schema location - I am
receiving errors without complete paths (i.e. Spy is unable to resolve).
> <ProcessSpecification
> xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebxml-bp/ebbp-2.0";
> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";
> xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude";
> xsi:schemaLocation="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebxml-bp/ebbp-2.0
> ebbp-2.0.3.xsd"
> name="Knit Wear Production"
> nameID="kp-2_2006-1"
> uuid="knitwearproduction-2_2006-1"
> specificationVersion="2.0">
>
> o We can't validate the instance against the schema.
> * With:
>
> <ProcessSpecification
> xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebxml-bp/ebbp-2.0";
> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";
> xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude";
> xsi:schemaLocation="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebxml-bp/ebbp-2.0
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ebxml-bp/ebbp-2.0/ebbp-2.0.3.xsd";
> name="Knit Wear Production"
> nameID="kp-2_2006-1"
> uuid="knitwearproduction-2_2006-1"
> specificationVersion="2.0">
>
> o We can validate the instance against the schema (and
> the schema can be located).
> * So - Dale is this something to address with OASIS?
novelli2: ok, it works with remote schemaLocation too.
> mm2: Thanks, Cristiano. Note: I've posted your drafts in the interim.
> Dale can answer and then we can do a brief update afterward. See our
> public web site. Regards.
novelli2: Thanks Monica,
if I don't understand your words, kindly, contact me again.
monica 6/15: No corrections needed; we much appreciate your interest and
work. The drafts are accessible at our web site so you can point
interested parties to them.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]