RE: ebBP 8/24/2004: ebXML Spec Mapping for ebBP

["Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Some comments inline.


    * CPPA:
          o Name/NameID
                + Moberg/Nagahashi references:
 
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200408/msg00016.html
                  and
 
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200408/msg00023.html
                + Does CPPA now map to more than one service

Dale>> CPPA could always map to several services. So to sharpen up the
issue that Monica
is raising: Can a single BPSS instance contain several "Services" (in
the sense that ebMS
uses that term)? Does ebMS wish to update its concept of "Service" to
align better with WSDL 
or retain a generalized "Service" concept with WSDL as just one
specialization? Depending
on the resolution of these issues, we would need to explain what
information items would contain
"Service" values in a BPSS instance. At the moment we link "Service" to
ProcessSpecification/@uuid
when BPPS is used. This restricts us to saying that BPSS instance
defines one "Service". 




          o OperationsMapping
                + Does CPPA map to more than one service (CPPA now uses
                  the ProcessSpecification@uuid which means each BPSS
                  instance has one service in it).


                + How does this relate to a web service(s)?
Dale>> OK, see above on this.

          o Influence on Service and Action/ActionContext

Dale>> Definitely need to reconsider Action. ebXML action concept is
similar to the WSDL operation concept.
One notable exception is that a WSDL Operation with a MEP of
"request-response" will only have one name. 
This convention derives from the early connection of WSDL to RPC, which
is lately less and less prominent.
[A function would have one name embracing both its input parameters as
well as its return values.] 
For ebXML, two Action values are associated with a WSDL r-r MEP. Is this
a problem? We _could_ have the 
request Action have the same value as the Response value (I think). It
does make the monitoring mapping 
from ebMS back to BPSS more dependent on using information about the
document exchanged (namespace, GED 
(global element declaration)




          o isLegallyBinding: HasLegalIntent [1]
                + Negotiation of business process BT characteristics

Dale> I like the name change. Is it proposed as something negotiable as
part of the CPPA?

    * ebMS
          o Resolve MSI / BSI questions

Dale> We first need to enumerate all the questions and then decide which
ones still cause confusion.
This would be a significant undertaking, and maybe should be a joint
effort.

          o Inclusion of payload services in ebMS v3.0
                + Validation parameters

Dale> The extensibility of these services poses a problem of how to
document these extensions for use with
CPPA. 

          o OperationsMapping
                + Influence on Service (see above)
                + Influence with web service (see above)

          o Clearer definition of differences of message vs. business
            acknowledgments

[1] Like that, so thanks David.

Interactive session with other ebXML groups

    * ebXML IIC: They are now solidifying 3 test pseudo steps with three
      process cases. I intend to send to the group for review as soon as
      they are a bit further.
    * Through JC: Liaisons
    * Registry: Several user communities have asked about a shared
      knowledge base.
    * Context

I've cc: other chairs so they are aware of these discussions. Comments? 
Thank you.