RE: [ebxml-bp] RE: BusinessActivityBehavior diagram

[<martin.me.roberts@bt.com>]

JJ,
	If you implemented the BSI using BPEL how would you handle
diferent protocols such as RNIF, ebXML MS

Martin Roberts 
xml designer, 
BT Exact
e-mail: martin.me.roberts@bt.com 
tel: +44(0) 1473 609785  clickdial
fax: +44(0) 1473 609834
Intranet Site :http://twiki.btlabs.bt.co.uk/twiki



-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:jeanjadu@Attachmate.com] 
Sent: 04 June 2004 16:37
To: Roberts,MME,Martin,XSG3 R; Robert.Haugen@choreology.com
Cc: ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] RE: BusinessActivityBehavior diagram


Some precision:

I said that a collaboration is merely observed and not executed. But
clearly the BSI has to handle the business transaction protocol. So the
BSI is a program that "executes". However, it does not "execute" the
collaboration. So I think that Martin and I are in perfect agreement. 

For me, the most important signal in BPSS is the "Acceptance"
acknowledgement. The receipt acknowledgement works as a centralized
"data scrubber" avoiding sending unnecessary data to the application
(but this remains a non critical operation, i.e. BPSS would work just as
well without it, it would put more burden on the application, that's
all). 

I like the signals or errors to be explicit. I think that in general
timeout should be reserved to identify communication problems
(transport, end points, ...), not for generating business errors.