Re: [ebsoa] Fwd: [ebxml-bp] ebxml-jc 12/8/2005: Conformance for and compatibility between ebXML Specs

[goran.zugic@semantion.com]

Monica,

The entire standard stuff has been slowly walking for years and has not been doing much if we do not take into account some exceptions. To me one of the main reasons has been the lack of standard convergence and integration. Now is the time to speed it up. Mutual collaboration is needed and I hope we will come up with some practical plan and next steps this time. More flexible and more open communication between the committees should be established. Very good example is what ebBP TC and UBL TC are doing now. I already raised a point long time ago that for example the UBL integration with business process oriented standards would be a perfect example for an initial convergence and interopreability demonstration. I can see you are pretty much running with it right now. That is an example which I support very much.

I will get back to you with the map/gap between SOA IM and SOA CS and ebBP. As you know we provided the FERA-based SOA presentation while ago with just you and few other colleagues from ebSOA TC attending it. I would appreciate any feedback from you as well. Our FERA-based SOA documents are available in ebSOA TC repository if you need more information and of course you can contact us any time directly if you need quick answers.

Goran

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Monica J Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM]
>Sent: Friday, December 9, 2005 01:24 PM
>To: 'Goran Zugic'
>Cc: 'Sally St. Amand', 'ebSOA'
>Subject: Re: [ebsoa] Fwd: [ebxml-bp] ebxml-jc 12/8/2005: Conformance for and compatibility between ebXML Specs
>
>
>>zugic: Sally,
>>I agree with you. We can start with ebXML and I hope that Web Services will follow.
>>
>>We already have direct applications of ebMS, ebBP, ebXML Registry, and CPPA for concrete FERA-based SOA architectural concepts. For example, as you know we are now finalizing our response for ebMS-based Versatile B2B Gateway where we already have ebMS referenced as one of the communication protocols in FERA-based SOA. I strongly believe that ebBP can easely integrate with FERA-based SOA if they start leveraging SOA Information Model first and an additional integration layer can be provided as well via SOA Collaboration Semantics.
>>
>mm1: We have to walk before we run Goran. We are starting to get some
>good traction in several domain communities for ebBP and CPP/A. There
>are many communities such as local governments, textiles and those using
>UBL that may have limited resources to implement. They are focused on a
>reasonable visualization of their processes, understood business
>semantics and patterns. We are now working with IIC on an ebBP profile
>which brings us a step further. Have you assessed the map/gap between
>SOA Collaboration Semantics and ebBP (and UMM)? I had asked before why
>the international patterns already developed were not used and new ones
>created. These comments are based on a pragmatic approach to getting to
>adoption. Again, walk before running. Thanks.
>
>Note: If this doesn't get to ebSOA list someone forward please. Thanks.
>
>>We already use ebXML Registry and Repository to define and fully support SOA Information Model and of course we use CPPA for defining protocol profiles for participants in a collaboration. Interesting aspect of the ebXML Registry and Repository role is that ebXML Registry TC can also consider use of SAO IM as a Registry Information Model (RIM) extension that will provide a natural integration of the registry in SOA.
>>
>>What is the next practical step?
>>
>>Goran
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Sally St. Amand
>> To: ebSOA
>> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 10:10 PM
>> Subject: [ebsoa] Fwd: [ebxml-bp] ebxml-jc 12/8/2005: Conformance for and compatibility between ebXML Specs
>>
>>
>> HI all
>> I think this relates to our interest in standards convergence and working with the other TCs who are pursuing the same or similar goals we are.
>>
>> Sally
>>
>> Monica J Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM> wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 13:53:55 -0800
>> From: Monica J Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
>> To: ebxml-jc@lists.oasis-open.org, ebXML BP <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>,
>> ebXML Regrep <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>,
>> ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org, ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org,
>> iic <ebxml-iic@lists.oasis-open.org>, ebsoa@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: [ebxml-bp] ebxml-jc 12/8/2005: Conformance for and compatibility between ebXML
>> Specs
>>
>> First, forgive the cross-posting.
>>
>> There are some points that may be of interest to consider for the
>> specifications originally part of the ebXML framework. As a followup to
>> the ebxml-jc meeting today, see the reference on the conformance and
>> usage profile statements in the working draft of ebMS v3.0. We have
>> discussed conformance and compatibility (historical loose coupling and
>> high alignment) of the specifications of the ebXML framework recently in
>> CPP/A and ebBP. To a more limited extent, this is also a question for
>> Reg/Rep to consider.
>>
>> >ebMS v3.0 draft reference - Document Description:
>> >Draft of a conformance Appendix section for ebMS3 (Dec 7, 2005).
>> >
>> >View Document Details:
>> >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/document.php?document_id=15832
>> >
>> >Download Document:
>> >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/download.php/15832/ebms3-Conformance-2.pdf
>> >
>> (Note: There is no public post on this draft document).
>>
>> For ebBP, we discussed the minimum set of requirements for our technical
>> specification and how it could be used with others in the ebXML
>> framework. We attempted to show the value of the specification itself
>> and recognizing additional value with use with other technologies and in
>> the context of compatibility with ebXML framework. Here is an excerpt
>> from the draft text for information:
>>
>> As with all the other specifications in the ebXML framework, an ebBP process definition may be effectively used with other technologies. From
>> the onset, these specifications have sought to be aligned as much as practical and capable of being composed together and capable of being
>> used with other technologies. That flexibility and composability are important aspects not only to the adoption of these standards but their
>> effective use and successful deployment into heterogeneous environments and across domains.
>>
>> In the context of this technical specification, Business Collaborations may be executed using the ebBP process definition and/or used with other
>> technologies. As it relates to the other specifications in the ebXML framework, an ebBP process definition supports the loose coupling and
>> alignment needed to execute Business Collaborations. This specification may also be used when several other software components are used to
>> enable the execution of Business Collaborations. One example is the use of web services mapped to business transactions activities. The ebBP
>> technical specification is used to specify the business process related configuration parameters for configuring a BSI to execute and monitor
>> these collaborations. The ebBP business semantics and syntax are also well-suited to enable definition of modular process building blocks that
>> are combined in complex activities to meet user community needs. [1]
>>
>> I'd encourage some thoughts and suggestions on simple yet consistent
>> (not exact but compatible) statements that may help effectively
>> communicate the value of each specification while also show they can be
>> effectively used together where required and configured as needed.
>>
>> [1] Reference:
>> Spec pr r02:
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=15524&wg_abbrev=ebxml-bp
>> As amended by our recent discussion on composability (and its
>> overloading):
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200512/msg00006.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>