OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-cppa message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS to WSDL mapping


Please see below.

Cheers,

Chris

Dale Moberg wrote:

>  Cory, some comments in line. 
>  
> 
>  Cory>  In a web services seminary this week it became clear that the 
> kinds of capabilities offered by ebXML were directly applicable to 
> enterprise adoption of web services technologies and architectures.  In 
> a panel session it was stated (by an IBM representative) that problems 
> with ebXML were that the adoption was "to fast" and it was "Not linked 
> to WSDL".  Well, we can't go back and slow down the process, but we can 
> fix the latter. 
> 
>  
> 
> Dale Moberg>The CPPA TC is also investigating how references to WSDL 
> documents (or portions of WSDL documents) might be used by or within 
> future CPPA documents. Please copy our list on your discussions of this 
> issue! One possible way in which WSDL might be referenced within the 
> CPPA was through an alternative ProcessSpecification reference. Other 
> parts of WSDL could be used to populate (and extend) CPPA binding 
> information.


As Marty pointed out, CPP is logically more suited to leveraging
WSDL (1.1) as it represents one side of the coin so to speak whereas
CPA represents something currently not reflected in any of the
de facto web services specs.

Seems to me though that when dealing with the "abstract" port
definition aspect of WSDL, one could easily describe a process
from both perspectives. Specifically, the <schema>, <message>
descriptions could be leveraged directly by BPSS replacing the
need for <BusinessDocument> and partially for <DocumentEnvelope>
which adds document security properties as well as a few other
bits of info that could be expressed as extensions to WSDL.


> 
>  Cory>  Perhaps in this upcoming release we could include a short 
> section that  
> 
>  would specify a mapping from BPSS to WSDL.  
> 
>   There are three basic issues with this mapping. 
> 
> * BPSS specifies two way mappings where as WSDL is one-way


Not necessarily. If you leave out the service binding aspects
of WSDL, there's no reason why you can't describe, in the abstract
at least, the messages themselves and to an extent the portType
(although there will need to be some accomodations for message-based
systems where there may be more than one possible "response" to a given
"request".


> 
> * BPSS allows for nested collaborations
> 
> * BPSS has choreography and other semantics. 
> 
>  
> 
> Dale> I am not certain that I understand the issues  quite the same way:
> 
>  
> 
> 1. WSDL contains both IDL- or API-centric and Document-centric views on
> 
> the exchange of information between businesses. 
> 
> ebXML has so far done little with the IDL-centric viewpoint. I think 
> something would need to be added to the BusinessDocument (akin to 
> wsdl:Message and the Message's wsdl:part(s) ) to support
> 
> setting up this correspondence.) I think you would need to beef up BPSS 
> or at least allow
> 
> BusinessDocument extensions to allow wsdl:Message and the 
> Message's wsdl:part(s). These
> 
> elements do seem to belong with BPSS constructs, however.


See above.


> 
>  
> 
> 2. For the Request-response wsdl:PortType,  the wsdl:input parameters 
> are analogous to a Request, wsdl:output parameters are analogous to a 
> Response, and wsdl:fault is analogous to a Signal. The other three 
> PortTypes may be of interest to BPSS, even though WSDL focuses on 2 
> PortTypes)


Not sure I would equate wsdl:fault with signal.


> 
>  
> 
> 3. So a WSDL definition of PortType has its explicit descriptive focus 
> on "one side" of the 'service'. The other side is largely implicit, and 
> is specified only so far as it must be able to supply wsdl:inputs and 
> receive wsdl:outputs (for the wsdl:PortType ofRequestResponse)


basically I agree.


> 
>  
> 
> 4. I agree that nesting and choreographies are absent from basic WSDL 
> (as contrasted
> 
> with XLang or WSFL ). WSDL appears to view itself as characterizing the 
> atoms of services/flows.


right, it could therefore be easily leveraged to this end. It needs
some work, and a few extensions but it is achievable IMO.


> 
>  
> 
> 5.  WSDL combines some elements that CPPA  has and some that are found 
> within BPSS. I think wsdl:PortType is more a BPSS-like construct. Within 
> the Binding elements (and the 3 Binding extensions for SOAP, HTTP 
> GET/PUT, and MIME), there are some things that overlap CPPA. So to map 
> everything in a WSDL document at the moment, parts would need to go into 
> a BPSS-like document,and parts into a CPPA style document, IMO.


Agreed, I think that the binding could largely replace what is in
CPP/A now for the equivalent function.


> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> To create a representation of the WSDL subset of BPSS semantics would  
> 
> not be that hard.  It would require the production of WSDL for each 
> "side" of a binary collaboration. 


Or it could simply be a set of abstract portType definitions for both
sides which each party would map but a subset to a given service
binding.


> 
> The nested collaborations could be "flattened" into one WSDL interface 
> or we could use multiple  
> 
> separate interfaces.  The choreography and other more advanced BPSS 
> semantics would be lost   
> 
> in the WSDL representation but still binding on the services which 
> implement them.
> 
>  
> 
> This is not a hard task - it could be done in a day or two.  I suggest  
> 
>  that for greater acceptance in the industry we consider adding an XSLT 
> 
>  transform to produce the required WSDL and make this part of the next 
> revision - very soon.   


That's certainly a possibility. I'd be happy to see this manner
of synergy between the ebXML and "web services" space. It shouldn't
be about ebxml vs web services, they are and they certainly should
be complementary. The only caution I would add is the issue of
IPR considerations.


> 
>  This would help bind ebXML into the web services core technologies.   
> 
>  While we (DAT) don't have to bandwidth to do this in the sort time 
> required,  
> 
>  we would be happy to assist someone in such a task.


me too!


> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Cory B. Casanave, President
> 
> Data Access Technologies
> 
> www.enterprise-component.com <http://www.enterprise-component.com/>
> 
> (305) 234 7077
> 
>  
> 




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC