RE: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS to WSDL mapping

[Cory Casanave <cory-c@enterprise-component.com>]

I think it is counter-productive to try and position WSDL as only for
"intra-enterprise integration", the problems addressed by WSDL and BPSS are
the same - both apply inside and outside the enterprise - ebXML is
"enterprise" web services.  There is recognition that "web services" must
encompass most of what is in BPSS.  This is primarily a political problem on
agreeing on the representation of the required semantics.
On the other point we are in agreement.
-Cory

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jean-Jacques Dubray [SMTP:jjd@eigner.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, March 12, 2002 11:39 AM
> To:	'Cory Casanave'; 'Jean-Jacques Dubray'; 'bhaugen'; 'OASIS
> ebxml-cppa'; ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org
> Subject:	RE: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS to WSDL mapping
> 
> I think we agree (and this is I thought what I was saying), at the
> moment the only thing you can do is produce a WSDL from a BPSS/CPP (not
> CPA) since WSDL is kind of unilateral. In the process you would loose
> quite a bit of information, but this is not the point. The other way
> around (WSDL to BPSS) is not really possible. I think this remains true
> even if you bring WSFL in the equation.
> 
> Note that I am not urging Web Service standards to come to the level of
> BPSS, on the contrary, I think they should focus on what they do best,
> intra-enterprise integration (note that I don't want to use the term
> EAI), and not be distracted by the minor details of B2B.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jean-Jacques Dubray____________________
> Chief Architect
> Eigner  Precision Lifecycle Management
> 200 Fifth Avenue
> Waltham, MA 02451
> Tel: 781-472-6317
> Cell: 508-816-4518
> email: jjd@eigner.com
> url: www.eigner.com 
>  
> 
> 
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Cory Casanave [mailto:cory-c@enterprise-component.com]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 11:24 AM
> >>To: 'Jean-Jacques Dubray'; 'bhaugen'; 'OASIS ebxml-cppa'; ebtwg-
> >>bps@lists.ebtwg.org
> >>Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS to WSDL mapping
> >>
> >>Jean-Jacques,
> >>Yes and no.
> >>
> >>You can import WSDL into a BPSS specification, (note that you will
> loose
> >>the
> >>endpoint - these would have to go into the CPP).  The WSDL generated
> BPSS
> >>would, of course, not be as rich as a full BPSS but it does define a
> >>service
> >>that is equivalent to the WSDL.  This "reverse engineering" is useful
> for
> >>adapting to existing systems (Yes, WSDL just became legacy!).  It is
> also
> >>useful as a starting point to create a more expressive BPSS.
> >>
> >>And (Switching directions), while it is true that WSDL produced from
> BPSS
> >>would not have choreography (for example), so what!  That is not the
> job
> >>of
> >>WSDL.  The BPSS semantics specify this so why reproduce it in WSDL?
> WSDL
> >>is
> >>low-level endpoint semantics.  You say that we will get this when we
> have
> >>WSFL - but BPSS is already filling that role, we don't need yet
> another
> >>way
> >>to say the same thing (We will probably get it anyway - so W3C can
> invent
> >>it
> >>:).  You can produce WSDL+WSFL from a BPSS just like you can produce
> the
> >>WSDL.
> >>
> >>We do mappings between lots of technologies, the idea is to map from
> as
> >>high
> >>a level model as you can and produce the set of specifications, code
> (or
> >>whatever) that captures those semantics.  You don't need to map to
> just
> >>one
> >>thing and you don't need every target to capture every semantic (which
> is
> >>the job of the higher level model).  So the higher level model should
> be
> >>considered a constraint on whatever is behind the WSDL (What we call
> the
> >>XML
> >>component).
> >>
> >>If WSDL is someday extended to have the BPSS semantics, then we don't
> need
> >>BPSS.  It is the semantics, not the representation that is essential.
> We
> >>can map representations but can't invent semantics.
> >>
> >>Cory
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From:	Jean-Jacques Dubray [SMTP:jjd@eigner.com]
> >>> Sent:	Tuesday, March 12, 2002 7:45 AM
> >>> To:	'bhaugen'; 'OASIS ebxml-cppa'; ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org
> >>> Subject:	RE: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS to WSDL mapping
> >>>
> >>> WSDL does not have the appropriate semantics to map to BPSS as Bob
> >>> Haugen explained in this email thread. However, you can certainly
> create
> >>> a number of operations that will support the BPSS protocol such that
> you
> >>> can run on top of a web service infrastructure. But again, the set
> of
> >>> WSDL specification created is not enough to map isomorphically to a
> BPSS
> >>> definition. Just by looking at the WSDL produced, you would still
> lack
> >>> the ability to enforce a particular sequence of invocation (at least
> >>> until WSFL is ready), and also lack the ability to unambiguously
> declare
> >>> that you have reached a given business state when a particular
> operation
> >>> is invoked.
> >>>
> >>> Hope that helps.
> >>>
> >>> Jean-Jacques Dubray____________________
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>> >>From: bhaugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
> >>> >>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 7:28 AM
> >>> >>To: OASIS ebxml-cppa; ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org
> >>> >>Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS to WSDL mapping
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Some people have touched on this angle, but
> >>> >>just to make it explicit:  there is a big difference
> >>> >>between one-shot messaging or RPC use cases
> >>> >>for Web services on the one hand, and longer
> >>> >>business conversations on the other.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Most of the Web services gurus I know of
> >>> >>understand that there are problems with long
> >>> >>conversations, although their solutions vary
> >>> >>from replacing HTTP (Don Box) to an explicit
> >>> >>model for long conversations that works over
> >>> >>many mechanisms (ebXML).
> >>> >>
> >>> >>One problem with long B2B conversations
> >>> >>is business state alignment.  For example,
> >>> >>was that offer accepted or rejected?  Was
> >>> >>that order fulfilled correctly?  Did you
> >>> >>receive that payment?  Is the claim settled?
> >>> >>Etc.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>So you are building a business protocol
> >>> >>stack over the technical protocol stack.
> >>> >>The business protocol stack starts with
> >>> >>the business transactions (offer-acceptance,
> >>> >>notify-confirm, etc.) and builds other
> >>> >>business protocols like commitment-
> >>> >>fulfillment and claim-settlement on
> >>> >>top of them.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>WSDL is a puny mechanism for the
> >>> >>business conversation protocols.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>BPSS is a good start in the correct
> >>> >>direction, in my biased opinion.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>-Bob Haugen
> >>> >>
> >>> >>P.S. I think the conversations apply
> >>> >>to B2C as well as B2B - don't you
> >>> >>want your order to be fulfilled?
> >>> >>But the B2C people have worked out
> >>> >>a set of patterns using standard HTTP
> >>> >>methods that seem to be approaching
> >>> >>defacto standard status.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> >>> >>manager: <http://lists.ebtwg.org/ob/adm.pl>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> >>> manager: <http://lists.ebtwg.org/ob/adm.pl>