Re: [ebxml-dev] BPSS execution engine

[Monica J Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

>capell: I'd say that you "COULD" use an abstract BPEL to describe the observable
>behaviour of one side of the B2B collaboration and then use that BPEL as a
>"stub" for the development of the internal orchestration.  However I think
>you'd be much better to separate the issue of public collaboration state
>management from internal orchestration.  That means using a state machine
>(write your own or customise one) to manage BSI activities and then having a
>loose coupling to the BPEL engine that deals with internal orchestrations.
>  
>
mm2: Yes, Steve, this is an important point about separating the public 
collaboration and state management from the internal orchestration. We 
recognized that as well and we even have verbiage in the v2.0.1 
(available on ebxml-bp public Documents). We should have the v2.0.1 
packages available for public review after we vote on the Committee 
Draft. We indicate that there may be available to the BSI. This is also 
an ongoing discussion with business modelers.

Thanks.

>We are involved with an Australian government project that will take both
>approaches.  The stub BPEL approach lends itself to existing vendor products
>for the short term.  The second approach will be more likely to be more
>scalable and manageable in the longer term.
>
>Regards,
>
>Steve Capell
>Red Wahoo
>www.redwahoo.com 
>p: + 61 2 94383700
>m:+ 61 410 437854
>f:  + 61 2 94392738
> 
>This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain information
>that is confidential and is subject to legal privilege. If you are not the
>intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this
>message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please
>notify the sender immediately, and delete this message. Any views expressed
>in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender
>expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of Red Wahoo Pty.
>Ltd.
> 
>Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
>We do not accept any liability for loss or damage which may arise from your
>receipt of this e-mail.
> 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Monica J Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] 
>Sent: Wednesday, 29 June 2005 1:15 AM
>To: Gerald Ebner
>Cc: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org; ebXML BP
>Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] BPSS execution engine
>
>Gerald Ebner wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Dear ebXML Dev,
>>
>>first of all: I'm an ebXML newcomer, actualy going through the specs and
>>forums, and thinking about an architecture for the B2B system to be 
>>built.
>>My question: I found promising (reference) implementation of the ebXML
>>registry and messaging services, but nothing that covers the concept of
>>- "business process/BPSS execution engine"
>>- "choreography engine"
>>- "ebXML execution framework"
>>i.e.a  run-time execution instance enforcing the BPSS business
>>collaboration protocol (I just found /ebSOA, /but that sounds like a
>>future approach).
>>
>>How would one typically implement the choreography?
>>- Hand code the BPSS engine?
>>- Transform the BPSS to BPEL?  How?
>>    
>>
>
>mm1: First (politely), they would reference the latest specifications. 
>We're almost ready to publish the v2.0.1 for Public Review for OASIS 
>Committee Draft consideration.  ebBP (aka BPSS) is most suited for a 
>monitoring engine that could understands the expectations, quality of 
>service, choreography, constraints, logicsl business documents, 
>activities, etc. described in the ebBP process definition.  Since the 
>v2.0 and now v2.0.1 are very new, we're starting to see development of 
>ebBP conformant process definitions. We know of several user communities 
>and vendors that may implement these specifications and associated 
>schemas (similar to other new technologies). It has been discussed that 
>there could be a transformation of one party's view (and 1 or more BSI) 
>into WS-BPEL (1 or more abstract processes and then executable). 
>However, there is an important difference. ebBP and collaboration are 
>peer-to-peer. WS-BPEL concentrates on centralized control 
>(orchestration). Therefore, it, hypothetically speaking, could serve to 
>help manage other enterprise application processes that support
>Business Collaborations. We've recognized that several implementation 
>options exist and we don't dictate which option is selected (For 
>example, how tightly or loosely coupled the enterprise or collaborative 
>processes are, or even if they are related).  Feel free to shoot 
>questions to ebxml-dev, Dale Moberg, and myself. We'd be happy to try to 
>answer your questions further. What is your interest? Thanks.
>
>ebBP v2.0.1:
>
>For r04:
>Spec:
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=13234&wg_abbre
>v=ebxml-bp
>Schema:
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=13235&wg_abbre
>v=ebxml-bp
>SignalSchema:
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=13236&wg_abbre
>v=ebxml-bp
>SchemaDocumentation:
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=13237&wg_abbre
>v=ebxml-bp
>SignalSchemaDocumentation:
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=13238&wg_abbre
>v=ebxml-bp
>SupplementsDocumentation:
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=13239&wg_abbre
>v=ebxml-bp 
>
>Note there are 6 packages.
>
>Minute
>
>
>  
>
>>thanks in advance
>>Gerald Ebner
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>[This E-mail scanned for viruses by IntaServe - MailGuardian Service at http://www.intaserve.com]
>
>  
>