[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: Web Services - EAI or B2B? (Was RE: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS to WSDL mapping)
There is a small aircraft Mfg in Seattle that seems to be making a good stab at it, and some healthcare company that services most of the west. I think I could even find a bank or two. I know of at least one "warehouse type" retailer. SAP seems to think it a good idea to build WS wrappers in. It also seems that every major industry vendor is claiming this is the new world. I can even think of one major industry vendor who believes it sufficiently to have an internal project to eat their own food. I think you are taking what I am saying upside down. I am not saying that the current WSDL/SOAP/UDDI package is sufficient for integrating "Enterprise" B2B or EAI (not even EAI), but that an architecture like ebXML is and that is (or IMHO should be) the direction web services takes. I consider ebXML to be part of the web services movement - note that it fits just fine with the W3C draft definition. We can use the WSDL/Soap infrastructure and layer the enterprise document exchange model over it, so in this sense web services (extended) are fulfilling both roles. We can and should have a consistent architecture across both sets of requirements, but this will look more like ebXML than WSDL/SOAP. Web services is being strongly positioned as B2B and EAI and we are better served by making it true than complaining about the shortcomings. Cory > -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Jacques.Dubray@eigner.com [SMTP:Jean-Jacques.Dubray@eigner.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 4:31 PM > To: Cory Casanave > Cc: 'Jean-Jacques Dubray'; 'Patil, Sanjaykumar'; Cory Casanave; > 'bhaugen'; 'OASIS ebxml-cppa'; ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org > Subject: Re: Web Services - EAI or B2B? (Was RE: [ebxml-cppa] BPSS to > WSDL map ping) > > Cory: > > could you give examples of companies doing or attempting to do B2B > transactions > with a Web Service infrastructure (I been beyond simple cases where > commitment > and fullfilments can be implied within the scop of an operation)? > > I can give you a lot of example with ebXML, I can also say that most IT > department I have talked to recently or within the past 12 months were not > > considering web services to run their B2b transactions. > > Web Services can be classified in at least 3 types: > - data rich > - calculation rich > - transaction based > > I you have data that has value and want to sell it over the web, then web > services is your technology of choice > > If you can expose some calculation as a web service which are more value > than > shipping a library, again, web services provide a great model to do that. > > But, I am sorry, web services provide a very weak infrastructure to carry > out > long running transactions. > > As a vendor you may claim otherwise to get the largest footprint possible > off > the same stuff, but I cannot find many users of the technology that will > contradict what I say. > > Cheers, > > JJ- > > > > 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> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > > manager: <http://lists.ebtwg.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC