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

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

David RR Webber wrote:

>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.
>  
>
mm1: There is also work ongoing in CPA negotiation where some of the 
business transaction characteristics are negotiated (after v1.0).  I 
would assume this is where GM or Nissan assert their muscle and indicate 
that only a minimum set of details are negotiable.

>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.
>  
>
mm1: See 5.12.1, Packages and Includes and 6.1.17 where the Include 
element is defined. Thanks.

>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
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>