[Fwd: ebBP 10/13/2005: Monitoring and State Alignment]

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

In October 2005, I was asked to query implementers of ebXML BPSS 
regarding their views and use of monitoring. Here is the summary from 
that time.  Thanks.

> Hima and I discussed yesterday Sybase's view of monitoring and state 
> management in implementing the ebXML BPSS v1.05. This is important 
> insight to our current capabilities. I would encourage you to review 
> and comment, so we can determine if changes are needed in v2.0.1. At a 
> minimum, this might serve as input as a technical note for ebBP 
> practioners. Thanks to Hima to his time and expertise. He can correct 
> my notes as I manually transcribed them.
>
>    Monitoring was considered part of the process using ebXML BPSS. A
>    business process (bp) engine managed state endpoints. Monitoring
>    nodes were used. The monitoring and business process engines were
>    separate but complementary. The bp engine could query the monitoring
>    engine to get the state (pull method) or push information to the
>    monitoring engine (push method). The monitoring engine was
>    multifaceted and took a global view - integrating business activity
>    monitoring and management of the collaborative state.  Sybase
>    developed a 'facade' to the collaboration. The process engine
>    managed many processes - application processes and those relevant in
>    the BSI for collaboration.  Monitoring included use of business
>    rules and analytics (indicative of BAM).
>    Sybase approached ebXML BPSS as other process descriptions -
>    generating code from the process description using a canonical model
>    (and a common business process description).
>
>    They used one state machine that was 'fed' from many state instances
>    or diagrams.
>
>    For business acknowledgement signals, Sybased identified a generic
>    or common endpoint that was used across all transactions (not per)
>    that was recognizable in the process instance not the CPP/A.  [1]
>
> This discussion was helpful to me and I trust it is for you. Comments 
> welcome. Does any of this information need to be in the specification 
> as implementer guidance? Thanks.
>
> [1] May require some further discussion relevant to recent work in 
> ebXML IIC.
>