Re: [regrep] Dynamic Discovery/Binding/Invocation

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Joe,

See the CAM specification ; -)

The <ExternalMapping> section allows you to relate
content directly to a SQL table or tables.  Therefore
you can have a Context rule given off the backend
system - say SAP, PeopleSoft, Baan, etc - and
have the content automatically dumped into a
database queue as needed.

Of course this requires that someone has
pre-configured these mappings to a selection
of popular solutions for the industry service
sector - and that the partner be using one
of those.

There are also security considerations at runtime -
but assuming the CAM template is in a registry and
is locked there as readonly - and you have permissions
to instantiate a new CAM session on your server -
this is of course highly illegal and not permitted by
the UN/CEFACT ebXML model in any way shape
or form - but I presume that's not an issue for you
these days, especially if you are about to drink the
ebSOA KoolAid?!?  ; -).

DW.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
To: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [regrep] Dynamic Discovery/Binding/Invocation


> Thanks David:
>
> <Quote>
> This then allows you to configure a catalogue of business process
> components into which you put - CPA, Context, BPSS and CAM templates -
> and when discovery occurs - the new partner can configure the Context
> and load the templates into their software and start using it.
> </Quote>
>
> I understand that this configuration would be a design-time, not a
> run-time - is that so? If so, how can such configuration take place at
> run-time? How can a discovering service "know" at run-time how the
> database the underlies the service should be mapped (table/field level)
> to the interface definitions of the newly discovered service? Is this
> even possible in April 2004?
>
> Joe
>
> David RR Webber wrote:
> >
> > Joe,
> >
> > The later - dynamic interface configuration - is the domain
> > of CAM - acting as a service of registry.
> >
> > We can do one part of this already.  Given a context
> > configuration - you apply your context values - and
> > CAM will adjust the interchange content accordingly.
> >
> > Example - if you are a supplier in Canada to GM in
> > Detroit - you need to provide cross-border shipment
> > information - while if you are in Michigan - you don't.
> >
> > That's the point of the work on Context for BPSS
> > V2.0 that we have in place.
> >
> > This then allows you to configure a catalogue of
> > business process components into which you put -
> > CPA, Context, BPSS and CAM templates - and
> > when discovery occurs - the new partner can
> > configure the Context and load the templates into
> > their software and start using it.
> >
> > The second part of your scenario - automatic
> > interchange linkage is also facilitated by CAM
> > templates - and here is where the UID mechanism
> > is vital.   This allows you to have agent software
> > that matches UIDs in target and source nouns.
> > Then there are the noun definitions themselves -
> > we're working on that in SCM at the moment.
> > That is the other piece of the puzzle needed by
> > CAM and the agent - to be able to automatically
> > pull the facet and predicate information for a
> > given UID of a noun - and then apply those
> > rules to the mapping.  The OWL work in SCM
> > is also very important to be able to classify and
> > relate like / equivalent / and similar parts so the
> > software agent can determine that a UID from
> > one domain is actually related to a UID from
> > another.
> >
> > The peices are there - what is needed as ever
> > is projects and funding to validate it and complete
> > the detail implementation.
> >
> > DW
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
> > To: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 2:29 PM
> > Subject: [regrep] Dynamic Discovery/Binding/Invocation
> >
> > > The following question might sound silly coming from someone who knows
> > > our spec so well, but it's a usage scenario that I just had to begin
to
> > > think about.
> > >
> > > Is anyone using ebXML Registry for dynamic
discovery/binding/invocation
> > > of Web Services? More specifically:
> > >
> > > - A Web Service would dynamically discover another Web Service;
> > >
> > > - It would use the discovered Web Service's interface definitions
(e.g.
> > > WSDL document) to dynamically construct message definitions that
conform
> > > to the discovered Web Service's interface definitions;
> > >
> > > - It would then map its data to these messages definitions and invoke
> > > the discovered Web Service;
> > >
> > > If no one is using an ebXML Registry this way, how close are we to
this?
> > > It seems to me that the "dynamically constructed messages
definitions",
> > > and - even more so - the dynamic mapping, would be challenging. Does
> > > this fall more under semantic technologies? If so, will it ever be
> > > possible?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Joe
> > > --
> > > Kind Regards,
> > > Joseph Chiusano
> > > Associate
> > > Booz | Allen | Hamilton
> > >
> > > 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/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> > >
> > >
>
> -- 
> Kind Regards,
> Joseph Chiusano
> Associate
> Booz | Allen | Hamilton
>
> 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/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>