Re: [ebxml-bp] Re: [wsbpel] [uddi-spec] WS-BPEL TN scope OK - but how about working with us on a B2B collaboration TN?

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Monica,

I think the right "home" for this is the ebSOA specification.  I believe
there is very little new to create here - just tying together the pieces
coherently - between BCM, BPSS, CPA and Registry work on
templates and processes and metadata.

The ebSOA work is transitioning and a new team is needed to take-over
since the existing team is transferring their efforts to pure-play SOA
Reference
Model focus, rather than ebSOA.

I already raised this to the BCM team on the bi-weekly call - and the BPSS
team members should also be considering how and what to contribute to
ebSOA go forward.  I have volunteered to do part of the job of editing
the ebSOA specification - but we definately need experienced members
from the BPSS team to also contribute.

What I believe is this shows there is an urgent need to deliver the ebSOA
specification around the new V2 BPSS and V3 Registry specifications,
and to give people a clear and straightforward architecture model.

Also the work we did for the XML2004 Interop shows what can be
achieved with a simple focus and leveraging the existing components
in ebXML today.

We can also consider discussing this some more on our next conference
call.

The next conference call for ebSOA is scheduled for Jan 5th - and as
soon as time and dial-in information is confirmed - I'll let everyone know.

In the meantime I would suggest signing up to the ebSOA for those
interested in pursuing this all in more detail.

Thanks, DW


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
To: "steve capell" <steve.capell@redwahoo.com>; "'David RR Webber'"
<david@drrw.info>
Cc: "'BPSS ebXML'" <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] Re: [wsbpel] [uddi-spec] WS-BPEL TN scope OK - but
how about working with us on a B2B collaboration TN?


>
> ebBP members,
> There has been discussions on the UDDI list and other inquiries in
> Reg/Rep recently about important white papers regarding how to discover,
> store and associate business processes. I would suggest we consider
> working with some team members to develop a white paper for ebBP in the
> first quarter 2005.
> I would encourage comments. Steve, Dale and I would like to discuss this
> with you directly first.
>
> Thanks.
>
> steve capell wrote:
>
> > David,
> >
> > I have no doubt at all the BPSS is a perfect mechanism for describing
> > B2B collaborations. What I still need to do is to map BPSS to a
> > registry meta-model that can be used at runtime for “complementary
> > service” discovery & binding. So far as I know, nobody has done that
> > either for ebXML RIM or for UDDI. It is not enough just to publish the
> > BPSS as a single tModel (UDDI speak) or extrinsic object (ebXML
> > speak). Nor is it necessary to extract every transaction, requesting
> > responding activity, etc, etc and publish as meta-data. The question
> > is – what is just the right amount of meta data that facilitates the
> > discovery & binding process. We think that is:
> >
> > UMM domain object
> >
> > UMM Business area taxonomy
> >
> > UMM process Area taxonomy
> >
> > UMM abstract process (ie BDV process)
> >
> > BPSS process specification (linked to a BPSS instance)
> >
> > BPSS binary collaboration (derived from BPSS and linked to a CPA
> > template instance)
> >
> > BPSS role (derived from a BPSS and linked to the BPSS instance)
> >
> > CPA binding (derived from a CPA template as a concatenation of roleId
> > and channelId)
> >
> > Each of these objects needs a bunch of associations and
> > classifications including things like “complementaryRole” and
> > “complementaryBinding”
> >
> > We use that meta data to facilitate bilateral agreement negotiation
> > and then use the result to turn template CPAs into deployment CPAs and
> > push them out to relevant end-points which, in turn automatically
> > process the CPA and BPSS and configure themselves to transact.
> >
> > But we’d like to see our registry meta-model (or a version of it)
> > become an adopted standard – typically via a published technical note.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* David RR Webber [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> > *Sent:* Thursday, 9 December 2004 8:14 AM
> > *To:* steve capell
> > *Cc:* BPSS ebXML
> > *Subject:* [ebxml-bp] Re: [wsbpel] [uddi-spec] WS-BPEL TN scope OK -
> > but how about working with us on a B2B collaboration TN?
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > I've been working with the US government here on modelling processes
> > using BPSS.
> >
> > This is well suited to the task of regulatory interactions with formal
> > conditionals and
> >
> > context requirements.
> >
> > The new version 2.0 of BPSS includes the ability to have multi-party /
> > multi-role
> >
> > models along with transaction formats and signals.
> >
> > You can check out the activity diagram examples and working models
> > that we've
> >
> > built for industry scenarios at the following location:
> >
> > http://www.visualscripts.net
> >
> > And there is also the tutorial there as well. Clearly BPSS excells for
> > B2B models.
> >
> > I'd be happy to work with you on developing these models to suit the
> > Australian Gov
> >
> > needs.
> >
> > Thanks, DW
> >
>
>
>