RE: [ebxml-cppa-ws] initial discussion

["Fletcher, Tony" <Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com>]

Dear Keith and others,

Maybe one of the first things this sub-group should do is to follow your
thoughts below to their conclusion and write up an architecture
(/descriptive) document that describes the way that a CPP and / or CPA
would be used in an Web Services environment.  It would explain how it
was used and also the rationale for using (i.e. the advantages and
disadvantages).

I guess my 'going in' assumption would be that the use of CPP and CPA in
the Web Service environment would be completely analogous to the current
situation in the ebXML environment (but I am willing to be convinced /
educated so this will not necessarily be my concluding position!).  That
is the CPP would state the various ways it is possible to configure a
system and the CPA the way two parties have agreed to configure their
systems for a particular use.  The difference would be that you would
normally be configuring SOAP plus add ons rather than ebXML messaging
(which itself is a specialised use of SOAP with Attachments) and that
you might be using something else than BPSS to express the messages and
their sequencing that have been agreed to be exchangeable - this aspect
is a bit of a minefield at present with perhaps WSBPEL and W3C
WS-Choreography being the potential front runners - neither being fully
defined and stable yet (and the W3C group is still looking for the horse
let alone wanting to stable it!!) - there is also WSCI but I am not sure
if this is being implemented.

But it may be that the way you and others see CPP/A being used and its
usefulness is quite different, which is why I think writing it up so we
can all agree and share the vision would be a good first step.  If done
this work could be a stand alone document, perhaps used as an
introduction or primer, or be included as the introductory portion of
any eventual specification.

Best Regards     Tony
A M Fletcher
 
Cohesions 1.0 (TM)
 
Business transaction management software for application coordination
 
Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX     UK
Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787   Fax: +44 (0) 20 7670 1785  Mobile: +44 (0)
7801 948219
tony.fletcher@choreology.com     (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)


-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Babo [mailto:keith.babo@Sun.COM] 
Sent: 09 May 2003 09:44
To: ebxml-cppa-ws@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ebxml-cppa-ws] initial discussion



Greetings,

This is the first in a series of messages that I will send to the list
to get things kicked off in the Web Services subgroup.  Unless there are
any objections, the initial order of business will be to establish the
requirements and objectives of the team.  Next, I would like to have a
series of high-level discussions on possible solutions/approaches,
followed by a concrete plan of action for implementation.  Pretty
standard stuff. ;-)


One of the most important things we need to iron out is what our
operating charter will be in the upcoming months.  Based on my review of
previous activities in this SC, the web services effort seems to break
down into two separate camps:

 Camp 1) Identify integration points between CPP (and possibly CPA?) and

 WSDL documents to achieve a WSDL representation of CPP content.

 Camp 2) Identify methods for introducing variability into the existing
CPPA schema to accommodate a broader range of web services activities
(business choreography, security, reliability, etc.)


I definitely get the impression that the previous work done by Arvola,
et al., was in Camp 1.  Based on previous F2F presentation materials, I
gathered that the main thrust of their activity was towards establishing
an 'exportable' representation of CPP/CPA content in the form of WSDL.
Naturally, the effort focused on representing configuration details
below the business collaboration layer.  One open item is whether this
work should be continued.  Yet another is whether or not the scope of
this work should be expanded to include the representation of business
collaboration details within WSDL (perhaps by

importing/substituting CPPA collaboration definitions??).

Camp 2 seems to be a bit more apropos given the alignment discussions of
late. Essentially, the main effort involved here is to allow for the
integration of other WS definitions within a CPP/A document.  Without
getting into the technical details at this point, I would like to iron
out the goals of the effort.  Specifically, I feel we should develop a
strategy for including

additional specifications 'by reference' that will not lead to a
hard-coded binding to any particular definition/specification.

In the upcoming weeks, I would like to narrow down our focus a bit to
include some substantial (yet achievable) objectives.  Once we trim the
fat, so to speak, then we can go neck deep into the technical details.

cheers,
keith