Hima:
It occurs to me that the BPSS schema does not provide a
faithful translation of the UML Diagram of a Binary Collaboration (see Figure 9
in the BPSS spec).
The UML diagram shows a 1 to n relationship between
BinaryCollaboraion and AuthorizedRole, and two 1 to n relationships (one
labeled to and the other labeled from) between AuthorizedRole and
BusinessActivity (the superclass of BusinessTransactionActivity and
CollaborationActivity).
In other words, the BinaryCollaboration should have
relationship with all of the AuthorizedRoles that is either the
fromAuthorizedRole or toAuthorizedRole for each of the
BusinessTransactionActivity and CollaborationActivity that is used within the
BinaryCollaboration.
On the other hand, the BPSS schema only includes a single
InitiatingRole and a single ResondingRole for each
BinaryCollaboration.
-Arvola
MulitPartyCollaboration roles
correspond to BusinessRoles. Each of them could perform multiple
"Authorized roles"
But the specification does not preclude same party performing
multiple roles in a binary collaboration.
For one bta it could perform the "Buyer" role and other
BusinessTransactionActivity same party could perform the role of a
"Requestor".
Or, roles could be reversed for 2 BTAs.E.g. Binary Collaboration "Request
Inventory Report" from BPSS specification has roles reversed for
BusinessTransactionActivities happening in sequence.
Arvola Chan wrote:
Hima: In a MultiPartyCollaboration, a BusinessPartnerRole may perform
multiple initiating roles and responding roles. Since the 1.1 CPP/A spec is not capable of dealing with multi-party
collaborations, I am only worrying about
BinaryCollaboration. In each BinaryCollaboration,
there is only one InitiatingRole and one RespondingRole. Regards,-Arvola
-----Original Message-----
From: Himagiri(Hima) Mukkamala
<himagiri@sybase.com>
To: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>
Cc: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
<ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>;
ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org
<ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org>
Date: Monday, December 10, 2001
5:11 PM Subject:
Re: [ebxml-cppa] [ebxml-msg] authorizedRole
One small correction.
fromAuthorizedRole and toAuthorizedRole don't always have to correspond
to the Initiator and Responder. If a BC has multiple
BusinessTransactionActivities, intermediate BTAs can have roles
different to that of initiator/responder. Only criteria is that they
belong to list of Authorized roles specified in BPSS.
I'm ccing bpss team, cause the schema is missing the AuthorizedRole
element.
In that sense there would be an Element called AuthorizedRoles? in
the bpss instance.
-hima
Arvola Chan wrote:
In BPSS, a BinaryCollaboration has an
InitiatingRole and a RespondingRole. A BinaryCollaboration may include
one or more CollaborationActivities and/or
BusinessTransactionActivities. Each
CollaborationActivity/BusinessTransactionActivity has a
fromAuthorizedRole and a toAuthorizedRole attribute. I believe that the
names of the InitiatingRole and RespondingRole of a BinaryCollaboration
must match the fromAuthorizedRole and toAuthorizedRole attributes of its
component BusinessTransactionActivities and CollaborationActivities.
Anyway, since authorizedRole is neither the name of an attribute or
element, I don't think it should be spelt as one word in section
3.1.1.2. Instead, it should be spelt as "authorized role" without being
in bold or italics. If we want to explain what authorized role means,
perhaps we can elaborate within parenthesis as follows: authorized role
(fromAuthorizedRole or toAuthorizedRole)
-Arvola -----Original
Message----- From:
Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>
To: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
<ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Monday, December 10, 2001 1:24
PM Subject:
[ebxml-cppa] [ebxml-msg] authorizedRole >FYI
>
>*************************************************************************************
> >Martin W. Sachs >IBM T. J. Watson Research
Center >P. O. B. 704 >Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
>914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 >Notes
address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM >Internet address:
mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
>*************************************************************************************
>---------------------- Forwarded by Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM on
12/10/2001 >04:23 PM --------------------------- >
>David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> on
12/10/2001 03:42:32 PM > >To:
Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
>cc: ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
>Subject: [ebxml-msg] authorizedRole >
> > >Chris, in section 3.1.1.2, there is an
attribute/element called >authorizedRole. >It is our
convention to bold/italics the names of elements and attributes,
>even >if they are not ours. > >In CPPA I
find fromAuthorizedRole and toAuthorizedRole. > >Where did
this come from? Is it an element or attribute? Should it be
>bold/italics? > >Regards, > >David.
> >
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> > > >
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
|