[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] RE: ebBP / BPMN extensions
Jean-Jacques, OK - that is helpful. On the subject of BSI - I think we need a separate technical note on that. I'm not sure BPEL does much of anything for us there however either! (OK - I'll concede we could use some BPEL based exchanges, as point functions - but not a foundation agent). Currently I'm looking at ebMS and essentially the BSI around that - there's an excellent document here: http://ebs.mardep.gov.hk/xmldg/doc/XMLDG-TIR.pdf that covers off ebMS BSI stuff (not all - but a chunk!). This is the kind of thing I'd see we could develop WRT BSI for BPSS. Especially the supporting infrastructure and components maps, and the functional flow and agents needed. Anyway - one step at a time - first we have to finish BPSS V2 specifications documentation! Thanks, DW Quoting 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 > http://drrw.net
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]