[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp-comment] Public Comment
Radha, First we appreciate your comments and once we discuss in the ebBP team, we may ask that you attend a call to investigate your comments further. Thank you. See some very initial comments inline. >Comment from: radha.arur@polaris.co.in >Name: Radha Arur >Title: AVP >Organization: PSLL >Regarding Specification: > >Feedback on ebxmlbP ver 2.0 > >Good points: >1. The distinction between Collaboration, Message AND the interaction and dependancies between Business Process Interface and Message Interface are very well articulated. > >2. The definition of types of Gateways and the distinction between Binary and Multiparty collaboration are very clearly defined. > > mm1: Thank you. >Suggestion for improvements: >1.Though the distinction and the dependencies between BSInterface and MSInterface are defined, it is not clearly specified (though suggested) how the MSI can be used without BSI. i.e Does the BSI remain redundant in that situation? > > mm1: Whether the business process delegates to the messaging infrastructure is an implementation choice rather than dictated by the specification. And, whether these are used together or individually is also the same. Given the current capabilities of messaging services, there are capabilities that are expected by the business process that are not supported. Examples include: Acceptance Acknowledgements after business processing on the business document is completed (either successfully or otherwise). The ebBP team has had discussions surrounding: 1. More specification of the handlers involved for messaging and the business service, which I believe is important in your question. This further specification or definition likely would fall outside of the core technical specification. No decision has been made whether it would be part of a primer or how-to guide, an additional white paper or other document. The glue has been seen to be the CPP/A between the two. 2. To what degree specification should be made. One key point in our discussions has been the optimal balance between flexibility (given what is used at runtime) and the constraints placed on implementations if the definition assumes particular technologies. For example, we discussed at length that the BSI could be a gateway, a service, middleware, an application or any combination of these (or other possibilities we've not specified). >2.Relation with other specification – > i.e how the CPA and CVV should interact with CQI – Customer Information Quality TC recommendated work? > > mm1: I'd direct this question to CPPA team. I'll forward to that team and cc: you. >3. CPA actually specifies the interface with access points defined by the business process specification. Elaboration / clarification on this sentence? Does it mean BSI is CPA? > mm1: The CPPA articulates the technical mechanisms that configure a runtime system and encourage interoperability between two parties that may use different applications or software from different vendors. The CPP/A defines the way two parties// will interact in performing the chosen business collaborations. The BSI understands business collaborations, the associated BTA, the business state, and the encompassing conditions, constraints, and expectations of the parties involved. The CPP/A currently supports the notion of business transactions between collaborating roles. For example, the CPP/A currently can provide a reference to timing parameters to a business collaboration but technical mechanisms are yet to be defined to accommodate (in CPP/A and in the underlying messaging). Another key example is for web services. The business process defines a fairly succinct way to map business transaction activities to an abstract name for a web service operations. The technical mechanisms for the interface, the namespace, access, etc. are actually defined by the configurable capabilities in the CPP/A (as they should be). If this further description assists in answering your question, is it sufficient to articulate in the appendices to enable understanding by our user communities? >4. Rules for the Collaboration Monitoring engine is left too much to the discretion of the application and has not specified any framework or guideline and may also take input how this interacts with F2F activity. i.e How the messaging and collaboration layer work together is not specified or not easily tracable. > > mm1: See the previous comment that the implementation is not dictated and why. That does not mean however we could provide additional guidance for collaboration monitoring. In an anticipated subsequent version, we intend to expand the status visibility capabilities, for example. Whether or not such specification between the collaboration and messaging layer should be in the ebBP specification is an open question. Given what I have articulated thus far, a primer or white paper may be the more appropriate mechanism. What are your thoughts and suggestions? >5.Distinction between Business message and signal and the relation with BSI may be explicitly mentioned. > > mm1: The BSI understands both and their relevance to success or failure (whether technical and/or business). If you look at Section 3.6.3 in the technical specification (on public web site: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=16455&wg_abbrev=ebxml-bp [pdf in .zip]), it discusses how business messages with an associated business document and business signals relate to success or failure. If we link these two discussions in the Appendices, Appendix A, will that increase your understanding? The specification, appendices, and the schema and documentation are used together. >6. The difference between Substantive business message and normal business message since both refers to the same in many situations. > > mm1: We can increase the description to make this consistent. I will work through in the specification where changes may be required. This is editorial in nature. >7. Explanation of Relevance of state synchronization and state alignment may need to be mentioned. > > mm1: In Section 3.4.2 (see reference above for link), we do describe this. I will go through the specification and see where this is underspecified. We are clear in the specification that the expectations of the parties and their shared understanding is imperative for business collaboration. State alignment is key to enable that. I'll provide further comments once I go through the specification more fully to address your question. >8.Relationship to repository is very much at abstract level. May/ should provide a better implementation recommendation. > > mm1: This may be an excellent opportunity for a profile. We have had some initial interest in one related to ebXML Registry/Repository. >9. A sample implementation on how the specification can be used between applications in the organization (especially for a complex business transaction ) with the use of Fork, Decision and Joint Gateway will be really useful. > > mm1: We do have this in an example on the public web site (criminal justice in the Netherlands). We will have more UBL v2.0 supported ebBP definitions that do the same likely very soon. See: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=16436&wg_abbrev=ebxml-bp. I'd encourage your further comment to this initial set of responses. We are very appreciative for your response and continued interest in ebBP. Thank you.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]