Re: [ebxml-bp] 1/5/2004: Late Binding ....

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

Monica,

I know its nice to think of peer to peer - but certain
transactions clearly one peer has to be the arbitator and
make critical decisions.   GM/Nissan with their suppliers
and dealerships is hardly Peer-to-Peer, but the BPSS
model makes sense, but right now - GM / Nissan would
only want to share the sub-BPSS for dealership with
them - and not everyone else, and vice versa.

There's complex interactions here - and we can model
them and make them run smoothly.  Similarly - re-usable
'chunks' do not resolve solely around a business document
exchange.

I believe we fundamentally need an <include> statement,
along with all that entails - versioning, a sub-BPSS 
best-practices, and worked examples.

This is obviously something we need to discuss further
as you indicated.   Hopefully most of the pieces for this
already exist - we merely need to document the 
'how to' and provide some 'glue' syntax to bring it all
together quickly and easily.

Thanks, DW.

> >  
> >
> mm2: The main point of my response Dave is that you are mixing BPEL 
> concepts in BPSS. You talked about a controlling party - in BPSS the 
> relationship is peer-to-peer. Thanks
>