RE: [ebxml-cppa] Re: Notes from BPSS/CPPA conference call

[Cory Casanave <cory-c@enterprise-component.com>]

That is the intent of "SubstitutionSet" - to provide a way to modify the
parameters in a specific context while maintaining tracability to the
original..
Cory

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Himagiri(Hima) Mukkamala [SMTP:himagiri@sybase.com]
> Sent:	Monday, November 26, 2001 1:11 PM
> To:	Cory Casanave
> Cc:	Martin W Sachs; Dale Moberg; ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org;
> ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject:	Re: [ebxml-cppa] Re: Notes from BPSS/CPPA conference call
> 
> Continuing with compositional approach,
> If someone wanted to model collaborations between
> multiple partners, but with different parameters at the collaboration
> level, e.g
> time to perform, and  want to structure it in such a way that they have a
> different
> BPSS for each of these, it can't be done as it is now.
> 
> ActivityNames are a reference to either the BusinessTransaction or the
> BinaryCollaboration within the document, although it's not explicitly
> stated.
> 
> It would helpful to do something like what WSDL does, where the common
> elements could be defined in a common document and the differing
> elements be defined in partner specific bpss instance documents.
> 
> One way would be to use QNames.
> 
> Brian, May be a 2.0 issue.
> 
> -hima
> 
> Cory Casanave wrote:
> 
> > One of the reasons the BPSS uses a compositional approach is for just
> this
> > situation.  All off the collaborations are reusable and can be nested.
> This
> > allows similar but different collaborations to be constructed from the
> same
> > parts without having to mess with one created for another purpose.  If
> > collaborations are so un-coupled that they may not necessarily be used
> > together it is best to create these as independent collaborations and
> then
> > create another than combines them in the desired combinations.
> > Cory
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stefano POGLIANI [SMTP:stefano.pogliani@sun.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 8:12 AM
> > > To:   bhaugen; Martin W Sachs; Dale Moberg
> > > Cc:   ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject:      RE: [ebxml-cppa] Re: Notes from BPSS/CPPA conference
> call
> > >
> > > +1.
> > >
> > > I think that this would be the cleanest approach.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > >
> > > /stefano
> > >
> > > » -----Original Message-----
> > > » From: bhaugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
> > > » Sent: 21 November 2001 18:56
> > > » To: Martin W Sachs; Dale Moberg
> > > » Cc: ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > » Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] Re: Notes from BPSS/CPPA conference call
> > > »
> > > »
> > > »
> > > » Dale Moberg:
> > > » > Suppose 2 companies want to engage in OrderManagement,
> > > » > but do not wish to engage in POCancel actions or
> > > » > POChange actions. [This is not a far-fetched example,
> > > » > by the way.] If the ServiceBinding embraces all actions
> > > » > in the instance, they will in effect agree to bindings
> > > » > for actions that they do not support across the mythical
> > > » > BSI interface.
> > > » >
> > > » > These situations may have the following possible remedies
> > > » > (and I am sure there are others as well!):
> > > » >
> > > » > 1. Create ways to specify a portion
> > > » > of a BPSS instance as the
> > > » > targeted package of leaf actions.
> > > » > That reopens themyriad "name" attributes
> > > » > from which the service name
> > > » > could come from. May be feasible though.
> > > » > 2. Create ways to have Override specify
> > > » > a null binding for
> > > » > actions not agreed to.
> > > » > (Not wild about
> > > » > this one either
> > > » > as it seems to introduce clutter that
> > > » > the binding-up-actions as a group)
> > > » > 3. Apply Tony W's XSLT filter ideas to
> > > » > the BPSS instance to extract
> > > » > the right ones. If we use this technique,
> > > » > then we still
> > > » > should document how the service
> > > » > naming convention works.
> > > » >
> > > » > MWS:  There is one more remedy, which is
> > > » > to create a BPSS instance document that
> > > » > defines only the functions that will be
> > > » > used for a particular interaction. This
> > > » > is probably just a restatement of (3) and
> > > » > is my preference.
> > > »
> > > » BobH: I agree emphatically with Marty.
> > > » Creating different BPSS's for different business
> > > » processes is certainly simpler and safer than
> > > » trying to design, agree on and develop any
> > > » facility for on-the-fly variations.
> > > »
> > > » -Bob Haugen
> > > »
> > > »
> > > »
> > > » ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > » To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > > » manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> > > »
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > > manager: <http://lists.ebtwg.org/ob/adm.pl>
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>