Web Services - EAI or B2B? (Was RE: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS to WSDL map ping)

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

Aaaarrrrggggg!  

I have to violently disagree!  I also suspect most companies promoting web
services would not like the "Only for EAI" box.  Simple single-shot RPC is
not sufficient for either role.

There is no reason the same architecture and technologies can't be used for
B2B and EIA.  There is no reason to have a fundamentally different
architecture just because your business partner is not owned by the same
shareholders.  The interaction requirements between "Lincoln Continental"
and "GM Engines" is not that different than between "Lincoln Continental"
and "Delco".  In fact, with the rapidity of acquisition and divestiture and
outsourcing it is unwise to architect for things inside and outside
differently.  We have customers who want to use ebXML internally - should we
show them the door?

We have found the "collaboration" style of modeling and deployment is very
effective for both B2B and EAI.  While there may be some relaxation of some
constraints internally, that is not something you want to architect for - it
is something you should handle in deployment.

I find the W3C characterization of a web service just fine.  Realizing that
the business requirements will move it in the directions ebXML has already
started down; Asynchronous document interchange supporting long-lived
collaborative processes.

In providing the specification framework for enterprise web services we
should address the total picture, from B2B to EAI type of integration - down
to where a process role is encapsulated in a single business unit.  This
kind of architectural integration has real and immediate benefit to the
enterprise.  

Cory

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jean-Jacques Dubray [SMTP:jjd@eigner.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:38 PM
> To:	'Patil, Sanjaykumar'; 'Cory Casanave'; 'Jean-Jacques Dubray';
> 'bhaugen'; 'OASIS ebxml-cppa'; ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org
> Subject:	RE: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS to WSDL mapping
> 
> If only life was as simple as if you don't mention anything it is going
> to work just fine. Unfortunately there is reality and everybody should
> know by now that you don't cross company boundaries with the same
> technologies that you use to cross department boundaries. They are
> intrinsically orthogonal in their requirements, though you could
> establish a layering that reuse come common technology. It the common
> denominator the internet? Can you layer web-service B2B on top of
> web-service EAI? Who knows how it will end up playing. 
> 
> Jean-Jacques 
>  
> 
> 
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Patil, Sanjaykumar [mailto:spatil@iona.com]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:16 PM
> >>To: Cory Casanave; Jean-Jacques Dubray; bhaugen; OASIS ebxml-cppa;
> ebtwg-
> >>bps@lists.ebtwg.org
> >>Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS to WSDL mapping
> >>
> >>
> >>The following is a (work-in-progress, I guess) definition from Web
> >>Services Architecture WG in w3c -
> >>"A web service is a software application or component identified by
> >>a URI, whose interfaces and binding are capable of being described
> >>by standard XML vocabularies and that supports direct interactions
> >>with other software applications or components through the exchange of
> >>information that is expressed in terms of an XML Infoset via
> >>internet-based protocols".
> >>
> >>WSDL is not directly implied as the only service description
> >>language in the above definition. However, the above definition does
> not
> >>restrict  (or suggest as best usage of) Web Services to
> intra-enterprise
> >>integration only. Rather the mention of "internet-based protocols"
> >>in the above definition can be perceived as suggesting Web Services
> >>technology applicable in solving Inter-enterprise integration problem.
> >>
> >>
> >>thanks,
> >>Sanjay Patil
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >>----------------------------------
> >>IONA
> >>END 2 ANYWHERE
> >>Phone: 408 350 9619
> http://www.iona.com
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Cory Casanave [mailto:cory-c@enterprise-component.com]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 9:09 AM
> >>To: 'Jean-Jacques Dubray'; Cory Casanave; 'bhaugen'; 'OASIS
> ebxml-cppa';
> >>ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org
> >>Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS to WSDL mapping
> >>
> >>
> >>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>
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>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>