[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Clarification of the CPPA spec on Service Values
Hi Kartha, Comments inline. -----Original Message----- From: Kartha, Neelakantan [mailto:N_Kartha@stercomm.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 9:10 AM To: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: Dale Moberg Subject: Clarification of the CPPA spec on Service Values All, Are service values unique within a CPA? In other words, when you have multiple collaboration elements, would each one have different Service Values? Dale> I normally think of the Service as a package of Actions (roughly, in BPSS speak, all the bpss:BinaryCollaborations that a cpa:ProcessSpecification identifies when the decomposition to bpss:BinaryCollaborations has bottomed out). So within a cpa:CollaborationRole, for a given cpa:Role value, a Party would announce in the ServiceBinding all of its agreed upon details over all the Actions that are implemented for the participants. The ServiceBinding/Service element contains the service value (used in the ebMS header). If there were two CollaborationRoles with the same ServiceBinding/Service value, I would expect that normally you would find that the Party is playing a different Role in each CollaborationRole element. So, the relevant corner case would be that a CPA could contain the information about both a Party's Roles of Buyer and Seller, with another Party playing the complementary Roles of Seller and Buyer. === Currently, my understanding is that the spec does NOT say that when we have multiple CollaborationRole elements, each one of them would have a different Service values. Dale> I think normally they would have different values. Cases arise, see above, where it is allowed for a CPA to package up the information needed for different process role assignments. Personally it seems to me that it would probably be simpler to have two CPA instance documents, but it is allowed. (See lines 1221-1236) in version 2.0 of CPPA spec. However, note that the CollaborationRole element has one ServiceBinding element (line 959) and that ServiceBinding element has one Service element (line 1217). Hence, the intent seems to be that the Service values would be unique. Dale> For the normal 80/20 case it will be unique. But the corner case above allows it to be repeated within the scope of another CollaborationRole element. Is my reading of the intent correct? Kartha Dale> Please follow up if there is still a problem. I think I am addressing your concerns.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]