Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] Action item: specifying negotiation process asa wsdl.

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

Dale Moberg wrote:

>Hi
>
>At the f2f people asked me how much work it would be to convert the wire
>formats of negotiation to wsdl.
>
>In terms of BPSS instance work, it would probably best be deferred until
>BPSS has support for wsdl defined processes. Currently an
>"OperationActivity" element is proposed and under discussion. 
>  
>
mm1: Given the current proposal, what, if any, questions or gaps do you 
see with the OperationActivity.

>In terms of CPPA work, the 2.x CPPA (with extensions for WSDL and other
>things) could be used to specify the services.
>
mm1: How do we resolve the difference between signals and messages, and 
the differences in processing (legal commitment and economic aspects 
implicit here)? We have not yet resolved the definition of a service in 
the context of ebBP for the BSI, which may serve as a composed service 
interface.  Thoughts?

>In terms of Negotiation schema work (NDD plus NegotiationMessage), a
>quick solution is sketched in the schema attached to this message. [See
>also the wsdl:type with the same info.]
>  
>
mm1: We have received some feedback from the international legal 
community (for eCommerce today) that the NDD may or may not be 
considered an attachment. The key is if the NDD (supplemented to the 
NegotiationMessage) is substantive to the business process. At this 
time, it depends on the parties overall agreement at a minimum.  We 
should discuss this as if the NDD is considered non-substantive if (1) 
May not impact the business and (2)  It can only be interrorgated by 
type and metadata (not on the instance but the metadata type). We should 
discuss this further as this has a potential impact on ebBP and 
CPPA/CPPA negotiation.

>In terms of WSDL work, a quick solution is sketched in the wsdl attached
>to this message.
>
>So, overall there is not too much work that would be needed to fully
>support a WS described wire format.
>
>Nevertheless, we could defer the CPPA and BPSS work, roll-up the payload
>into a single SOAP:body, and include the wsdl in a short amount of time
>IMO.
>  
>
mm1: Deferring some of the CPPA and BPSS questions (such as negotiation) 
may be advised. However, addressing the basic implications of the 
payload roll-up and any impacts to the business process should be 
discussed now. I would prefer we address BPSS v2.0 as soon as practical, 
if only incrementally. Thanks.

>The wsdl has a lot of namespaces that you will certainly need to change
>schemaLocations for.
>If you are at that level of investigation and run into trouble, send me
>a message and I can send the exact files (for CPPA, NDD, and
>NegotiationMsg that I used in this illustration).
>
>There is about half of an afternoon's work in the above examples. So
>they are by no means finished. 
>Some incomplete areas:
>1. Should we define faults for any operations in the service?
>
mm1: How does this relate to business exceptions?

>2. Should request-response patterns be defined for some operations?
>Which ones? [All the current operations are "one-way" MEPs.]
>
mm1: Does that require we map to the business transaction patterns in 
ebBP? How does this affect CPPA assumptions?

>3. Should we try to break out messages into distinct specializations of
>an underlying type? [I just used one schema for the SOAP:body uniformly
>in this discussion approach.]
>  
>
mm1: Given my questions above, we maybe should talk about this as an option.

>Dale Moberg
>
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-cppa-negot/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>  
>