Re: [ebxml-bp] Reply to Monica: Potential Expressive Shortcomingsabout Role and current Role convention information

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

>Moberg.....to model these occupants much more specifically. Maybe some type or
>legal constraint information could be pasted on the abstract participants,like Anders has
>suggested, but nothing more deployment specific than that. Leave that to UBAC and/or
>CPPA and similar efforts.)
>
>The parts of the specification you mention lay down _general_ semantics
>for specific constructs, that announce conventions about connections of Roles. These general
>connections are not explicitly represented by elements/attributes in BPSS instances. Also, these
>connections obviously do not vary from instance to instance, they are always
>stipulated for the relevant situations. [I actually think that if we introduce explicit
>occupants, and association assertions between them and a role, then we might be
>able to remove the restriction of [1]. I am not certain that any inviolable business
>requirement is captured by [1] but maybe there is one. ]
>
>I think we will not be able to lay down general conventions to deal with
>use cases such as role reversal. Role reversal is a specific use case for instances and is
>not found generally. That is why I think we need specific support for expressing these
>connections within instances. We have about reached the end of what can be said generally about what
>role goes with what.  If we do recognize that there are constraints on role occupancy that are
>not generally present, then we should bite the bullet now for version 2, and introduce the
>needed constructs. I think a lot of discussion remains for what constructs to introduce, where they
>go, and how to allow reusability. However, I am trying to see whether we can reach initial
>consensus that an addition is needed, and the basic requirements for those additions. 
>
>I thought about trying to contine introducing general conventions, like
>the ones that we have in your refs [1] and [2] and how these would map role occupants in a
>multiparty to role occupants in binary collaborations, or how to do role reversal, and IMO, using
>general role occupant constraints just don't have the expressive flexibility that is needed. 
>
>So I think I disagree with you somewhat that we have all the underlying
>semantics in place. I think we need an extension. We should also have a suggested an xslt for embedding
>1.x instances within 2.x instances for support continuity.
>  
>
mm1: Dale, I think we are in agreement, actually. I agree we do have 
underlying semantics in place but the question is if more are needed. As 
I said we may need more specificity/flexibility/adaptability.  I agree 
we should speak further about Anders' suggestions as they seem to assist 
us in the business intents that are relevant in how we approach the 
technical aspects that implement them.