Re: [ebxml-bp] 12/7/2003: [Fwd: "Late Binding" of TimeToPerform]

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

Serm',

I agree - there is NO WAY in ebXML you are going to 'override CPA parameters
at runtime
by late binding'.

This is like proposing to the Catholic Church that priests should marry!

So - the correct business model is that the CPA contain the allowed
selections, and these
are agreed to and pre-known and determined.  Then at runtime - you can
provide values
to context parameters that then drive the specific scenario required.

Again - you can see this happening in CAM templates - where the global
external
context parameters are defined - the structure permutations documented - and
then
at runtime - one inputs the actual values from the CPA / BPSS and the
outcome is
then selected accordingly.

Thanks, DW.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Boonserm (Serm) Kulvatunyou" <serm@nist.gov>
To: <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] 12/7/2003: [Fwd: "Late Binding" of TimeToPerform]


> I am not sure if I understand the whole complexity of the issue or not. I
> preferred the BPSS being declarative at design time of business rule b/c
1)
> business rules are captured declaratively and 2) it supports the advance
> dynamic binding b/w partners. So my thought for the use case described by
> Lars is to create multiple Binary Collaborations with different
> timeToPerform's for both BC and BTA for different classes of
> products/services rather than overriding at the runtime.
>
> I'm not sure whether the BPSS (I mean specifically BC) is supposed to be
> context specific or context indenpendent according to the Architecture. My
> thought is that it is context specific.
>
> - serm
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <Lars.Abrell@teliasonera.com>
> To: <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>; <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 7:19 PM
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] 12/7/2003: [Fwd: "Late Binding" of TimeToPerform]
>
>
> Hi,
> I have compiled a short summary proposal for Work Item 55 about the late
> binding of the timeToPerform attribute. This is my very first proposal and
> I'm not sure if this is sufficient, but I hope so. There are still several
> implications and other things that needs to be worked out, and it would be
> very interesting also to listen to other opinions.
>
> * Lars.Abrell@TeliaSonera.com * +46 (0) 705 619080
> * Kilsgatan 4, Box 299, SE-401 24 Gothenburg, Sweden
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 10:26 PM
> To: ebXML BP
> Subject: [ebxml-bp] 12/7/2003: [Fwd: "Late Binding" of TimeToPerform]
>
>
> Lars, after reviewing the slides, the note and thinking about the learning
> session and teleconference discussions, there are several items that we
> should perhaps address, and talk about in the context of BPSS:
>
>     * Late binding on the BPSS
>           o Specifying the timeToPerform to the greatest time possible in
> the context of this type of collaboration [1]
>                 + Allowing late binding to accommodate logical business
> document requirements
>                 + Specifying when the late binding may occ
>     * Potential to override BPSS attributes in the CPP/A between the
parties
> [2] [3]
>     * Breaking the response into multiple responses: where more timing
> applies to specific requirements (such as delivery)
> or either from the perspective of the requestor or the responder [4]
>
> I encourage the team to think about these items in the context of
> roles/partners, timeToPerform, and the dynamic aspects of late binding
> we discussed last week. [5]
>
> [1] May likely not be as tight you would like given the interactions
defined
> by internal systems to support. Which brings up an interesting point on
> being able to keep these systems loosely coupled. For example, we have one
> case where the order may go by alternate means and not logged in the B2B
> system, and this really complicates this company's processing. We have to
> account for that at the process level.
> [1] Determine if this could meet your needs: See Section 9 of CPP/A
> document.
> [3] May complement any late binding functionality if adopted.
> [4] This may be driven either by business or service level agreements, or
on
> a case by case basis. For the latter, I would think we will have to
discuss
> the per-instance impact and its appropriateness.
> [5] Related Work Items 23, 25, 28, 46 and 55.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: "Late Binding" of TimeToPerform
> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 03:21:23 +0100
> From: Lars.Abrell@teliasonera.com
> To: Monica.Martin@Sun.COM
>
>
>
> Monica,
> During our use of BPSS we have in different situations noticed a need for
> different values in the TimeToPerform attribute for the same Binary
> Collaboration. This specific use case is based on the BC:NegotiateOrder in
> the NeBI specification (www.nebi.biz). Please see the attached slides.
This
> very simple use case for ordering different "Field Service Products" in
the
> telecom industry is based on using only the BTA:OrderRequestByBuyer and
the
> BTA:OrderAcknowledgmentBySupplier in the BC:NegotiateOrder. This simple
> version of the BC:NegotiateOrder is used for ordering different products
> using the same generic BusinessDocument (BD:Order). In the product
specific
> part of this BD:Order (i.e, in the order rows) the different "Field
Service
> Products" are specified. Depending on the different "Field Service
Products"
> (or combinations of  "Field Service Products") in a BD:Order or different
> "time to delivery" of the specified product, there is a need also to have
> different values in the TimeToPerform attribute of the BC:NegotiateOrder.
>
> Feel free to use this in any way you think is appropriate
>
>  <<TimeToPerform.ppt>>
> Regards //Lars
> Lars Abrell, TeliaSonera
>
>
>
>
>