Re: [ebxml-bp] ebBP 2/3/2005: Minor Update to Descriptive TextMSI-BSI Relationship

[Sacha Schlegel <sschlegel@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Hi ebBP team

Some comments

a)

A concern I have is to ensure that any BSI can be used with any MSI and
vice verca.

>From the quote: 

"For example, the BSI may be instantiated or provide requirements that
guide or generate the MSI to react to specific events defined in the
business process"

I do not want to have a proprietary "BSI is guiding an MSI" because that
would not allow for exchangeable a BSI and MSI.

The goal should be to achieve this "guiding" through an ebBP spec
standardized way. 

Appolgies if this can be done already by the BSI sending defined BPSS
signals to the MSI for the remote trading partner.

Otherwie a disclaimer to not define how a BSI and MSI interact should be
added.

One thought: If the MSH receives an ebXML message from the remote
trading partner the MSH does its job of decrypting, sending technical
ack AND forwarding the payload to the next component in the chain. Well,
the next component in the chain is the BSI. Without metadata along the
payload the BSI would not be able to associate the payload (imagine
encrypted payload) with any ebBP instance it executes or monitors. The
requirement to have this metadata is such a "not specified or defined"
part which is needed for a BSI and MSI to be able to communicate with
each other.
 
I admit to come from an implementer side :)

b)

>From the quote:

"The ebXML concept of a business transaction and the semantics behind it
are central to predictable, enforceable commerce."

Is this limited to ONE "business transaction" only or also to a
choreography of business transactions (including fork and joins)?

Regards

Sacha



Am Donnerstag, den 03.02.2005, 09:30 -0800 schrieb Monica J. Martin:
> Minor update (Thanks to Hima Mukkamala, for the details): Change is 
> designated by [add]...[end-add].
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > =================
> > Section 4: Language Overview
> > =================
> > FROM:
> > The BSI is completely separate from the Message Service Interface 
> > (MSI). In particular an MSI MAY be used without a BSI. A CPA, which 
> > contains a reference to a ebBP definition serves as the basis for the 
> > configuration of the BSI to enforce the protocol and semantics of the 
> > ebBP definition, as depicted in Figure 1.
> >
> > TO:
> > The BSI is completely separate from the Message Service Interface 
> > (MSI). They may effectively be used together even though the MSI MAY 
> > be used without a BSI.. The BSI is a logical definition for a party's 
> > actions. A CPA specifies actually the interface with access points 
> > defined by the business process specification used. The CPA, which 
> > contains a reference to an ebBP definition, serves as the basis for 
> > the configuration of the BSI to enforce the protocol and semantics of 
> > the ebBP definition, as depicted in Figure 1.  [add] The use of the 
> > MSI for a particular business interaction is constrained by the BSI 
> > based on the characteristics defined in the business process 
> > definition used. [end-add] The ebXML BPSS technical specification does 
> > not specify how the BSI is implemented.
> >
> > <<Implementer's note: The ebXML BPSS technical specification does not 
> > specify how the BSI is implemented.  For example, the BSI may be 
> > enabled through a BSI-aware business application or through behavior 
> > implemented  as part of an MSI component.  The business application 
> > may produce the business signals that are sent (realized) by the 
> > Message Service Handler.>>
> >
> > At a minimum, the BSI relates to the MSI in three ways:
> >
> >   1. Provide requirements to MSI.
> >   2. Constrain implementation of the MSI.
> >   3. Provide for auto generation of MSI.
> >
> > Design and deployment decisions may guide where an implementation lies 
> > on this continuum. In the ebXML BPSS technical specification, option 2 
> > is recommended. As a design choice, the ebXML architecture, and this 
> > specification, modularizes and separates these different process and 
> > messaging functions.
> >
> > Section 4.7: Core Business Transaction Semantics
> > Additional text proposed for the first paragraph or a second paragraph 
> > after the first.
> >
> > FROM:
> > The ebXML concept of a business transaction and the semantics behind 
> > it are central to predictable, enforceable commerce. It is expected 
> > that any Business Service Interface (BSI) will be capable of managing 
> > a transaction according to these semantics.
> >
> > TO:
> > The ebXML concept of a business transaction and the semantics behind 
> > it are central to predictable, enforceable commerce. It is expected 
> > that any Business Service Interface (BSI) will be capable of managing 
> > a transaction according to these semantics.  As the BSI is a logical 
> > definition, design and deployment choices are not specified (See 
> > Section 4).  For example, the BSI may be instantiated or provide 
> > requirements that guide or generate the MSI to react to specific 
> > events defined in the business process.  The MSI may interact with the 
> > BSI, that
> > recognizes the state of a business transaction. This may enable the 
> > MSI to implement rules when specific steps occur. The semantics 
> > defined in the ebXML BPSS technical specification enable the BSI to 
> > constrain and guide design and deployment based on the business 
> > transaction semantics.
> >
> >
> 
>