FW: Public Comment

["Jesmond Abela" <jesmonda@maltanet.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Jesmond Abela [mailto:jesmonda@maltanet.net] 
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 09:31
To: 'Jean-Jacques Dubray'
Cc: 'ebxml-bp-comment@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: Public Comment


Hi,

I have been following up articles regarding these topics outlined below, and
I had some points I wish to submit:

As I have come to the conclusion from the information and articles you have
kindly submitted, ebXML-BP is required to implement the BPM component for
the ebXML framework (i.e. attempting to adapt BPEL will not be very
successful since this is not intended for multiparty collaborations, but
rather orchestration of web services).

I do not wish (and do not have the resources) to implement an ebXML BPSS BPM
from scratch, and have been searching for an implementation of such
components for integration either as open source or otherwise, but found
only very limited support. Given that ebXML-BP v2.0 is imminent, I suppose
that it will be even more unlikely to find such implementations.

Alternatively, perhaps an existing BPM/workflow framework (e.g. JBOSS jBPM )
can be used to implement the BPSS engine. Has anybody considered or looked
into this matter?

I would greatly appreciate any input on this topic.


Best regards,



Jesmond Abela



-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:jeanjadu@Attachmate.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 20:28
To: jesmonda@maltanet.net; ebxml-bp-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: Public Comment


I don't think they are competing though the latest draft of BPEL shows
almost 100% commitment to B2B rather than private processes. You may want to
double check this statement with the BPEL TC directly. 

There are really three levels to the problem, as I see it

Collaboration (OASIS ebBP/BPSS)
Choreography (W3C/WS-CDL)
Orchestration (OASIS/WS-BEPL)

If you look at trivial examples, all those levels are overlapping. If you
look at real-world examples all levels are needed. BPSS and WS-CDL can
support very complex interactions while BPEL cannot model very efficiently
multiparty collaboration because it is taking the point of view of one side.
If what you are trying to model is very basic (2 parties you could go with
BPEL).

The BPSS team is working actively to see if layering is possible on top of
WS-CDL. We have started to give some feedback to the WS-CDL team as this
spec is in draft mode. Basically, WS-CDL and BPEL does not have any business
semantics, nor do they care about state alignment. BPSS offers a "business
transaction protocol" that supports non-repudiation and state alignment in
an interoperable way. You can always do that in WS-CDL and BPEL between two
parties, if the two parties agree that a particular message means
non-repudiation, or guarantees state alignment. If you don't need either
(I'd be surprised if you can live without state
alignment) you should probably go with WS-CDL.

If you need to model complex interactions that require business semantics
and state alignment, BPSS is your only choice today.

You can find more information on these articles I wrote:
http://www.ebpml.org/ebpml.doc 

http://www.ebpml.org/bpel-j.htm

http://www.ebpml.org/bpel4ws.htm

http://www.ebpml.org/ws_-_cdl.htm


Jean-Jacques



-----Original Message-----
From: comment-form@oasis-open.org [mailto:comment-form@oasis-open.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 10:37 AM
To: ebxml-bp-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Public Comment

Comment from: jesmonda@maltanet.net

Hi,

I am in the process of analysing the ebXML standard/s for implementing an
e-Commerce application. I have a question regarding the ebXML BPSS spec. in
relation to the BPEL/BPEL4WS spec., are these competing standards? If yes,
what is the position of OASIS since I believe there is a TC on this
initiative.

Best regards,

Jesmond Abela
e-BusCon Ltd.