[ebxml-cppa] RE: [ebxml-cppa-negot] RE: BSI distinguishing success,failure,and transition conditions

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Let me try to answer those questions.

BPSS is not more abstract than the MSH.  Part of the problem is that there
are things in the BPSS spec that aren't well explained apparently because
the  spec assumes knowledge of UMM and the ebXML business process modeling
work even thought the spec states that one can directly compose a BPSS
instance in XML.

If BPSS were strictly for design time, the UML models that it can be
derived from would be sufficient.  A BPSS instance is in XML because it is
intended to be processed by a computer, namely deployment tools and the BSI
functions that are mentioned in the BPSS specification. In other words,
BPSS is a runtime artifact.

BPSS is LOGICALLY part of the CPA. It provides choreography information and
document schemas that are not defined in the CPA. However it cannot be
assumed that CPA deployment tools will process a BPSS instance unless
vendors of those tools say that he CPA tools will process a BPSS instance.

People do not understand BPSS and BSI because ebXML has not produced a
comprehensive white paper, aimed at developers, that describes how the
ebXML specs work including what kind of run-time environment is desirable.
I agree with Duane that a SPECIFICATION of BSI is not called for, which is
why I said "white paper".  However, a discussion of what kind of
application-independent functions can be provided by middleware above the
level of MSH is important to enable developers to understand what they
should build.  Just explaining where the applications end and the
middleware begins, and where the MSH begins below the rest of the
middleware, is very important to understanding of how to build ebXML
systems as well as to discussing among ourselves.

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************


                                                                                                                                             
                      "Jean-Jacques                                                                                                          
                      Dubray"                  To:       "'bhaugen'" <linkage@interaccess.com>, "'Jean-Jacques Dubray'" <jjd@eigner.com>,    
                      <jjd@eigner.com>          Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "'Tony Fletcher'" <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>           
                                               cc:       "'Anarkat, Dipan'" <DAnarkat@uc-council.org>, "'Nickull, Duane \(ebXML\)'"          
                      08/20/2002 03:00          <duane@xmlglobal.com>, "'BCPS \(list\)'" <ebtwg-bcs@lists.ebtwg.org>, <ebtwg-bps@lists.      
                      PM                        ebtwg.org>, "'John Yunker'" <john.yunker@bleuciel.org>, <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>    
                                               Subject:  RE: [ebxml-cppa-negot] RE: BSI distinguishing success, failure,and transition       
                                                conditions                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                             



Clearly BPSS is a bit more abstract than let's say the ebXML MSH. I
often get the question: why is BPSS useful: at design time? at runtime?,
why do you need runtime component to support BPSS? -as it is part of the
CPA-

I never get the question why do we need a piece of software to implement
MSH?

Jean-Jacques



>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: bhaugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 2:51 PM
>>To: Jean-Jacques Dubray; 'Martin W Sachs'; 'Tony Fletcher'
>>Cc: 'Anarkat, Dipan'; 'Nickull, Duane (ebXML)'; 'BCPS (list)'; ebtwg-
>>bps@lists.ebtwg.org; 'John Yunker'; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
>>Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] RE: BSI distinguishing success,
>>failure,and transition conditions
>>
>>Re the periodic BSI controversy,
>>here is a modest proposal:
>>Start to develop a suite of conformance tests,
>>in collaboration with the IIC group.
>>Then people can start doing test-driven
>>development of implementations that would
>>satisfy the tests.
>>
>>-Bob Haugen
>>
>>P.S. I also think a design spec would be useful,
>>even if non-normative.  This thread repeats often
>>enough to be a sort of proof that it's necessary.
>>On the other hand, I think that the eBTWG
>>Business Collaboration Protocol project might
>>come up with enough spec so that combining
>>that with a test suite would be enough for most
>>programmers.