Re: [ebxml-cppa] RE: Clarification of the CPPA spec on Service Values

[Monica Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>]

>Moberg:  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.
>  
>
mm1: Dale, I believe that in the BPSS team, we discussed this and we 
were looking for more use cases from this team
to assist in understanding on how to accommodate in our future versions 
(alternating transaction roles within a collaboration).  Part of the 
proposed solution
was to require the binding between the runtime BSI identifier and the 
role to be visible in the condition statements of the transactions (in 
BPSS).

>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. 
>  
>