[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS to WSDL mapping
I think it is counter-productive to try and position WSDL as only for "intra-enterprise integration", the problems addressed by WSDL and BPSS are the same - both apply inside and outside the enterprise - ebXML is "enterprise" web services. There is recognition that "web services" must encompass most of what is in BPSS. This is primarily a political problem on agreeing on the representation of the required semantics. On the other point we are in agreement. -Cory > -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Jacques Dubray [SMTP:jjd@eigner.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 11:39 AM > To: 'Cory Casanave'; 'Jean-Jacques Dubray'; 'bhaugen'; 'OASIS > ebxml-cppa'; ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org > Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS to WSDL mapping > > I think we agree (and this is I thought what I was saying), at the > moment the only thing you can do is produce a WSDL from a BPSS/CPP (not > CPA) since WSDL is kind of unilateral. In the process you would loose > quite a bit of information, but this is not the point. The other way > around (WSDL to BPSS) is not really possible. I think this remains true > even if you bring WSFL in the equation. > > Note that I am not urging Web Service standards to come to the level of > BPSS, on the contrary, I think they should focus on what they do best, > intra-enterprise integration (note that I don't want to use the term > EAI), and not be distracted by the minor details of B2B. > > Cheers, > > Jean-Jacques Dubray____________________ > Chief Architect > Eigner Precision Lifecycle Management > 200 Fifth Avenue > Waltham, MA 02451 > Tel: 781-472-6317 > Cell: 508-816-4518 > email: jjd@eigner.com > url: www.eigner.com > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Cory Casanave [mailto:cory-c@enterprise-component.com] > >>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 11:24 AM > >>To: 'Jean-Jacques Dubray'; 'bhaugen'; 'OASIS ebxml-cppa'; ebtwg- > >>bps@lists.ebtwg.org > >>Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS to WSDL mapping > >> > >>Jean-Jacques, > >>Yes and no. > >> > >>You can import WSDL into a BPSS specification, (note that you will > loose > >>the > >>endpoint - these would have to go into the CPP). The WSDL generated > BPSS > >>would, of course, not be as rich as a full BPSS but it does define a > >>service > >>that is equivalent to the WSDL. This "reverse engineering" is useful > for > >>adapting to existing systems (Yes, WSDL just became legacy!). It is > also > >>useful as a starting point to create a more expressive BPSS. > >> > >>And (Switching directions), while it is true that WSDL produced from > BPSS > >>would not have choreography (for example), so what! That is not the > job > >>of > >>WSDL. The BPSS semantics specify this so why reproduce it in WSDL? > WSDL > >>is > >>low-level endpoint semantics. You say that we will get this when we > have > >>WSFL - but BPSS is already filling that role, we don't need yet > another > >>way > >>to say the same thing (We will probably get it anyway - so W3C can > invent > >>it > >>:). You can produce WSDL+WSFL from a BPSS just like you can produce > the > >>WSDL. > >> > >>We do mappings between lots of technologies, the idea is to map from > as > >>high > >>a level model as you can and produce the set of specifications, code > (or > >>whatever) that captures those semantics. You don't need to map to > just > >>one > >>thing and you don't need every target to capture every semantic (which > is > >>the job of the higher level model). So the higher level model should > be > >>considered a constraint on whatever is behind the WSDL (What we call > the > >>XML > >>component). > >> > >>If WSDL is someday extended to have the BPSS semantics, then we don't > need > >>BPSS. It is the semantics, not the representation that is essential. > We > >>can map representations but can't invent semantics. > >> > >>Cory > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Jean-Jacques Dubray [SMTP:jjd@eigner.com] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 7:45 AM > >>> To: 'bhaugen'; 'OASIS ebxml-cppa'; ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org > >>> Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS to WSDL mapping > >>> > >>> WSDL does not have the appropriate semantics to map to BPSS as Bob > >>> Haugen explained in this email thread. However, you can certainly > create > >>> a number of operations that will support the BPSS protocol such that > you > >>> can run on top of a web service infrastructure. But again, the set > of > >>> WSDL specification created is not enough to map isomorphically to a > BPSS > >>> definition. Just by looking at the WSDL produced, you would still > lack > >>> the ability to enforce a particular sequence of invocation (at least > >>> until WSFL is ready), and also lack the ability to unambiguously > declare > >>> that you have reached a given business state when a particular > operation > >>> is invoked. > >>> > >>> Hope that helps. > >>> > >>> Jean-Jacques Dubray____________________ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>-----Original Message----- > >>> >>From: bhaugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com] > >>> >>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 7:28 AM > >>> >>To: OASIS ebxml-cppa; ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org > >>> >>Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS to WSDL mapping > >>> >> > >>> >>Some people have touched on this angle, but > >>> >>just to make it explicit: there is a big difference > >>> >>between one-shot messaging or RPC use cases > >>> >>for Web services on the one hand, and longer > >>> >>business conversations on the other. > >>> >> > >>> >>Most of the Web services gurus I know of > >>> >>understand that there are problems with long > >>> >>conversations, although their solutions vary > >>> >>from replacing HTTP (Don Box) to an explicit > >>> >>model for long conversations that works over > >>> >>many mechanisms (ebXML). > >>> >> > >>> >>One problem with long B2B conversations > >>> >>is business state alignment. For example, > >>> >>was that offer accepted or rejected? Was > >>> >>that order fulfilled correctly? Did you > >>> >>receive that payment? Is the claim settled? > >>> >>Etc. > >>> >> > >>> >>So you are building a business protocol > >>> >>stack over the technical protocol stack. > >>> >>The business protocol stack starts with > >>> >>the business transactions (offer-acceptance, > >>> >>notify-confirm, etc.) and builds other > >>> >>business protocols like commitment- > >>> >>fulfillment and claim-settlement on > >>> >>top of them. > >>> >> > >>> >>WSDL is a puny mechanism for the > >>> >>business conversation protocols. > >>> >> > >>> >>BPSS is a good start in the correct > >>> >>direction, in my biased opinion. > >>> >> > >>> >>-Bob Haugen > >>> >> > >>> >>P.S. I think the conversations apply > >>> >>to B2C as well as B2B - don't you > >>> >>want your order to be fulfilled? > >>> >>But the B2C people have worked out > >>> >>a set of patterns using standard HTTP > >>> >>methods that seem to be approaching > >>> >>defacto standard status. > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> >>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.ebtwg.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC