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

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

Yes, I share your assumption that BPMN is at least a graphical notation.
The merge is then a merge "into" one picture. Underneath the picture,
however, there exists a notation instance (of BPSS) that can be used to
monitor process
and verify that they occur in accordance with the specification, and
also
a notation instance (of BPEL) that can be used as a local execution
language. 

Possibly WSDL could provide a common overlap of BPEL and BPSS, _if_ that
is needed. [It may be enough that they can be in the same picture.]
The OperationMapping construct that JJ is developing will quite likely
allow BPSS to indicate that kind of overlap. Or if a CPPA 2.1 or above
is used, then the CPPA can contain the mapping to the underlying WSDL
governing the document exchange.

Currently BPSS needs to know about the Document type
(its "envelope" name augmented as needed by arbitrary content checks on
the message) 
in order to relate message traffic to its choreography of BTAs. These
bits of information correspond to those parts of WSDL having 
to do with the interface proper, which are
defined using bits of XML schema in various ways. 
So the data in the messages would be a point of intersection possibly.

I think these topics are probably more in scope for the 3.0 version
of BPSS than 2.0, but it doesn't hurt to begin some discussion 
about how the notations might be used together. 



-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Yee [mailto:kcyee@cecid.hku.hk] 
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 1:53 AM
To: Dale Moberg
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] RE: ebBP / BPMN extensions


I am a bit confused here. My impression on BPMN is that it's basically a

graphical location. 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-
>
>      
>
>      
>