[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: ebBP 12/21/2005: Feedback from ePV Project on ebBP (Dale pleaseread)
As requested and with the approval of Pim vanderEijk, I've attached the
ePV criminal justice in the Netherlands working example as well as the
discussion thus far. When the ePV team has done their next process
definition update, we can further discuss. I encourage your comments on
this work and thank Pim and Gerald for their interest and progress thur
far. I've included my example with original comments, the generic
comments sent to the list, and the discussion I had with Gerald Slot and
Pim vanderEijk before the Christmas break. Note the open question about
multiple ToLinks with the same business state, specifically. Thanks.
1. ePV example and document attached (with my original comments in
tracked changes).
2. Original general inquiry I sent to ebBP 19 December 2005:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-bp/email/archives/200512/msg00026.html
1. "We have another European project that has started to model
their business processes using ebBP. That team will advise
when their model definitions and specific questions can be
made public. In the interim, I've extracted a few relevant
comments for us to consider. I understand these were
received outside of the comment period. However, we can
decide what action could occur and when (and if).
* How to rationalize the guidance in the process
definition for QoS, quality and document security to
what is effected at the messaging level? I responded
that the guidance in the process definition isn't
dictating the messaging constraint. The actual
constraint is applied via the CPP/A. Therefore, the
guidance in the process definition and the messaging
level constraint and execution can be separate but
complementary. We discussed this earlier in the
specification cycle whereby you may require specific
QoS expectations at the business level and leave the
actual mechanism to the concrete implementation layer
(and when delegated to the messaging infrastructure).
* Can more information be added for business signals?
This sprung from a need to add more information
particularly when user-defined signals were used. We
currently leave unspecified the format of a
user-defined signal except to reference its intent and
how it is used in business transactions. Do we need
to consider an extensibility mechanism for the
business signals defined?
* Can you allow more than one ToLink on a transition? A
transition with condition expressions can only
transition to one ToLink. However, you can transition
to several different states (BusinessSuccess,
BusinessFailure, etc). I defer to John Yunker and
Dale Moberg on the idea of having more than one ToLink
for transition. Logically you could have success and
then a decision is triggered or needed (enable
condition that a decision should be made) because of
the preconditions used (if automated)."
Discussion with Pim and Gerald (in addition to providing the original
paper from Dale Moberg on onInitiation=>links). The previous paper is
not attached but can be found at:
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200405/msg00077.html.
> vanderEijk: Hello Monica,Here is a response from the contractor who
> worked on the ebBP document. I forward it to you directly and copy
> Gerald in so you can respond directly to him. I have added (in red)
> some additional clarification. We will update the example to work
> with the ebBP2.1 and are working on approval to make the XML instance
> public. Thanks for you interest, hopefully this helps improve ebBP
> and promote its adoption.
>
>> From: Gerald Slot [mailto:gerald.slot@sempervisum.nl] Sent: 20
>> December 2005 19:57
>> To: 'Pim van der Eijk'
>> Subject: RE: FW: ebBP versie 2.0 onderzoek
>>
>> Attachments
>> Slot: My question was: When specifying an attachment for a document
>> envelope I found that an attachment element has its own
>> specification element. But you
>> have to refer to a business document element which again has a
>> specification element. Why do I have to specify this twice
>>
>> The reaction of Monica was: Because they may not be the same.
>>
>> Slot: I don't understand this. What is the difference between the
>> specification element within the attachment element and the
>> specification element within
>> the business document element that I refer to via the
>> businessDocumentRef attribute of the attachment element?
>
> mm1: The Attachment has characteristics of its own. Prior to v2.0.1,
> the Attachment lacked the capability to provide Specification and
> Documentation to it. We tried to standardize both the Document
> Envelope for the Business Document and Attachment elements
> consistently. We even allow you to specify you may or may not have
> an attachment.
>
> The Attachment may be an architectural drawing or a picture of a
> product from a company (the Buyer) that is attached to an Order. It is
> referenced back to the logical business document via the Document
> Envelope, that it is related to. Providing that relationship doesn't
> actually tell you that the Attachment and logical Business Document
> are located at the same place, are held in the same namespace, or have
> external reference information that guides their usage.
>
> Attachment has its own Specification which is very flexible. For
> example, a Buyer wishes the picture to show that a product assembly
> for an Apple Computer must be of a specific size and color. In
> addition, the Specification points to an external document reference
> that provides additional logic on the importance of that product
> picture. We added the externalDocDefRef attribute in the last public
> review cycle.
>
>> onInitiation
>> Monica says: onInitiation has been replaced by much more robust links to
>> allow much more clarity related to what occurs
>>
>> Slot: My question is: Is it correct that I use a
>> complexBusinessTransationActivity
>> where I used a the onInitiation attribute before?
>
> mm1: Yes, you can if needed but you don't have to do so. I've attached
> the original white paper on ComplexBusiness TransactionActivity (from
> initial discussions). [deleted for ebBP distribution 27 December 2005]
>
> The more robust linking constructs (ToLink and FromLink) allow you to
> more robustly specify the transitions from one business state to
> another. These can be used with Decision, Fork, Join, Start,
> Transition, etc. This replaced one aspect of the (underspecified)
> onInitiation flag.
>
> The second aspect of onInitiation flag was that an activity could
> during another activity. That is the aspect handled more efficiently
> by ComplexBusinessTransactionActivity. It allows recursive embedding
> which onInitiation didn't (the Transition marked with onInitiation
> dead-ended). From the white paper, "That is, there was no next-state
> link as in an ordinary transition because that link had been consumed
> in pointing to the embedded state. This made a Transition marked with
> an onInitiation flag a significantly different component than an
> ordinary Transition that connected states along a labelled path."
>
> One important note, ComplexBusinessTransactionActivity allows you to
> provide visibility to an activity that is relevant to one of the
> parties involved in a BTA. It is NOT multi-party collaboration (MPC).
> I gave this example to Pim. In MPC, the three parties recognize one
> another, a Buyer, Seller and Supplier have explicitly defined roles
> and activities in the collaboration definition for the BTAs involved.
> With ComplexBusinessTransactionActivity (CBTA), the Seller may
> collaborate with the Supplier. However, the collaboration definition
> between Seller and Supplier is defined elsewhere. The BTA embedded in
> the CBTA actually only provides the Seller visibility to that activity
> (i.e. it is not part of the collaboration for this specific process
> definition). I've cc: Dale Moberg to see if he has any more
> information to add.
>
> Again, you can use the business state links without
> ComplexBusinessTransactionActivity. You can use
> ComplexBusinessTransactionActivity where needed such as in the example
> case provided above.
>
>> Pim's additional clarification: if we have two Business Transaction
>> activities, BT1 between A and B and BT2 between B and C. With
>> onInitiation,
>> we could express whether BT2 is executed after the response in BT2,
>> or between the request and the response in BT1. How does one express
>> this in
>> ebBP 2?
>
> mm1: In this case you would use ComplexBusinessTransactionActivity.
>
>> multiple toLinks
>>
>> Slot: When it is allowed to specify more then one transitions from a
>> specific state in a collaboration (as I have done in the example)
>> multiple tolinks
>> within a transition are not necessary.
>
> mm1: In my brief discussion with Pim this morning, he said you could
> have multiple transitions to a BusinessSuccess state. I'd request we
> have a use case or exemplary scenario so we can address this further.
> For the ToLink, we allow Completion States to have 0..n
> ConditionExpressions that are checked at runtime to determine whether
> the transition to a state is actually made. Or, is what you require is
> that you have multiple instances of a given Completion State that each
> may have a condition expression related to it to accommodate separate
> conditions?
>
> Looking at your example in the instance document:
> .... <!-- Two transitions from D-IR-PV-InvorderingRijbewijs. Is
> this allowed? -->
> <Transition>
> <FromLink
> fromBusinessStateRef="ID-IR-PV-InvorderingRijbewijs"/>
> <ToLink
> toBusinessStateRef="ID-IR-Success"><ConditionExpression
> expressionLanguage="ConditionGuardValue " expression="[The accused
> does not start a 'raadkamer' procedure]"/></ToLink>
> </Transition>
> <Transition nameID="ID-IR-Trans1">
> <FromLink
> fromBusinessStateRef="ID-IR-PV-InvorderingRijbewijs"/>
> <ToLink
> toBusinessStateRef="ID-IR-Decision2"><ConditionExpression
> expressionLanguage="ConditionGuardValue " expression="[The accused
> does not start a 'raadkamer' procedure]"/></ToLink>
> </Transition>...
>
> You are transitioning two different states from the ToLink, which
> doesn't currently appear to be allowed in the existing schema. In
> addition, the ConditionGuardValue which was not envisioned to be used
> for the Condition Expressions on the ToLink although it is available
> on the FromLink.
>
> From the schema for ConditionGuardValue: "The simpleType related to
> the enumerated list for the guard values associated with the FromLink
> in a Completion State. Each of the FromLinks in a Completion State can
> be specified to transition as a result of the ConditionGuardValues.
> This check is made every time a transition occurs from the real states."
>
> Perhaps Dale you can look this over and we can discuss in an upcoming
> conference call. I think that you can manage the state changes from
> the FromLink, but I need more information on the use case and some
> input from Dale on the more technical aspects of the schema itself.
> Thanks.
>
> We very much appreciate the opportunity to work with ePV Pim and
> Gerald. Merry Christmas and a Joyous New Year. Thanks.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]