RE: [ebxml-bp] RE: ebBP / BPMN extensions

["Jean-Jacques Dubray" <jeanjadu@Attachmate.com>]

I apologize; I often take shortcuts when representing something and
realize that only I can understand what I just said.

So what I have attempted to do is to establish a continuity between BPMN
used to represent private processes and BPMN as we would use it to
represent collaborations. That can be helpful to share more than the
collaboration between partners or simply to represent the private and
public process for a single party.

Monica had asked me "don't you need to represent the BSI". From a
notation perspective I don't think so. With an ebXML implementation, the
BSI is the component that will be the target of BPEL invoke, the invoke
will not be send directly to the partner. 

If a partner is only capable of web services, then this notation is just
a way to express a choreography.

Jean-Jacques


-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber [mailto:david@drrw.info] 
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 5:47 AM
To: Patrick Yee
Cc: ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] RE: ebBP / BPMN extensions

Patrick,

I too did not follow this.  BPSS and BPEL are like night and day.

However - it is possible to have a WSDL pointing to a BPEL as a node in
a BPSS
diagram.  This we can already support - we do not need to use BPMN to do
this
with.

However - folks like IBM already have BPMN in their products - so I
guess there
may be some thinking that if a modified BPMN can support BPSS generation
for
people like that - then there may also be some linkage for whatever
those
vendors are also doing with BPEL.

This would allow modellers to use BPMN that their are familiar with -
and the
tool to provide access to BPSS or BPEL based implementation
architectures.

I'd prefer to focus on BPMN and BPSS foremost - and not get sidetracked
into
BPEL - they have enough problems of their own without us worrying about
them!

So - our goal should be to provide people trained and familiar with BPMN
- with
the means to easily now also generate BPSS using a metaphor that is
close to
what they are already comfortable with.

Thanks, DW.

Quoting Patrick Yee <kcyee@cecid.hku.hk>:

> 
> 
> > I am a bit confused here. My impression on BPMN is that it's
basically 
> > a graphical notation. Given this, when we say we can merge BPSS and 
> > BPEL using BPMN, does it mean only that we can merge them onto a
same 
> > picture? Technically, I guess WSDL will be the guy to link BPSS and 
> > BPEL up. Am I on the right track? Please comment.
> > Regards, -Patrick
> >
> >
> > Dale Moberg wrote:
> >
> >> I have one initial question.
> >>  
> >> It seems to me that BPMN could effectively merge a BPSS with a BPEL

> >> (or a choregraphy with an orchestration) because it can cover both 
> >> aspects.
> >>  
> >> Might this not be a way to connect BPSS or WS-CDL with BPEL for the

> >> purposes of a unified display? That way the XML instances could
still
> >> be used separately for different tasks, and we wouldn't have to
worry 
> >> about how to annotate BPSS with BPEL bits to cover orchestration?
> >>  
> >>  
> >> Dale
> >>  
> >> PS:
> >> I  also need to find a good pointer back to a summary on the BPMN 
> >> graphical constructs because some ot the arrows seem funny...
> >>  
> >> Are the arrow heads just links or do they indicate flow or both?
> >>  
> >> Is the clock a timer, indicates a possible delay, or ??
> >>  
> >> Looks promising at a high level though.
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  
> >>
> >>     -----Original Message-----
> >>     *From:* Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:jeanjadu@Attachmate.com]
> >>     *Sent:* Sunday, August 22, 2004 11:06 PM
> >>     *To:* Monica Martin; Dale Moberg
> >>     *Cc:* Stephen A White; ebXML BP
> >>     *Subject:* ebBP / BPMN extensions
> >>
> >>     This is my proposal for a few extensions to BPMN to be able to
> >>     represent the choreography of collaborations. Here is an
example
> >>     (Process PO collaboration).
> >>
> >>     
> >>     
> >>     
> >>     The double line activity represent a business transaction (we
may
> >>     want to use special symbols or lining scheme for indicating the
> >>     need for or lack of signals)
> >>
> >>     
> >>     The dashed line represent the direction (initiating to
responder),
> >>     the response flow is not indicating. When two flows cross the
> >>     activity (e.g. Cancel) it means that both parties can initiate
> >>     that transaction.
> >>
> >>     
> >>     Optionally, we can represent the message flow (PO / Ack PO).
> >>
> >>     
> >>     The little circle on each side of the BTA represent an
endpoint.
> >>     The private process connects to these end points (not fully
> >>     represented here).
> >>
> >>     
> >>     I had to create a new gateway which acts as both a fork and a
> >>     join. This means that change PO and Cancel PO can happen as
many
> >>     times as we need to, until a time out occurs. Note that the
> >>     semantic of a fork gateway in a collaboration means that the
BTA
> >>     is enabled, not that it is necessarily executed.
> >>
> >>     
> >>     It is start is agreeable, I will do a complete analysis of what
> >>     maps and does not map to a collaboration.
> >>
> >>     
> >>     Thanks,
> >>
> >>     
> >>     JJ-
> >>
> >>     
> >>     
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 


http://drrw.net