[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa-ws] initial discussion
Hi Keith, Thanks for the heads up. I had a few comments / observations ... 1. I agree with your assessment about the Arvola docs. They definitely seem to be in camp I. 2. I think that WS Interoperability needs to be at a much deeper level. e.g. one of the scenarios we are working with involves a vendor who has already implemented a Basic web services framework. They now need the business capabilities of the CPPA thrown around it. In addition, they need the key features of a ebMSH runtime to augment their services. We thought that the logical fit seems to be a ebMSH runtime with the CPPA for configuration and a web services based BSI. However, we were not sure how the mapping would be effected. 3. Publishing the CPPA as a WSDL is a good solution for an inside - out scenario : connecting web services infrastructures to to ebXML ecosystems. We have not run into these so far, so I have no comments for this :) Are we going to look at the ebMSH bindings too ? Or is our scope restricted to just the CPPA and its WSDL bindings ? I hope this makes some sense in our context .... Regards, Rajesh. -----Original Message----- From: Keith Babo [mailto:keith.babo@Sun.COM] Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 1:44 AM To: 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]