[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Question on cpa "service" ID vs BPSS process ID
Here are some of my responses to some good questions about the historically problematic alignment of service in ebMS and our current alignment in CPPA with BPSS. It may be time to straighten this out in the maintenance release 2.1 of CPPA Comments welcome. -----Original Message----- From: Steve Capell [mailto:steve.capell@redwahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 5:27 PM To: Dale Moberg Cc: anthony.ellis@redwahoo.com Subject: Question on cpa "service" ID vs BPSS process ID Dale, I sent this message to the list a few days ago but did not get a reply. Do you have any insights.? ************************************************************************ **** To my mind, an ebXML MSH Service / Action defines the specific service Dale> we generally view service as a package or class and action as a function or method. So the combination labels a specific source/sink of a data stream in a way. that is to be invoked on the receiver party side in a collaboration. Dale> well, we think of it the sender pushing a stream towards some data sink on the receiver side the action is semantically more on the side of the sender than a label for the process, but it probably does not make too much difference. In other words it is role specific and maps very nicely to, say, a WSDL PortType. Service actually maps to portType while action maps to operation, sort of. Correspondingly, an ebXML MSH Action maps nicely to a WSDL Operation. Yes, but sometimes an operation is an action pair. Actions are not intrinsically req resp pairs. The ebXML MS 2.0 specification seems to support this position: The ebXML Messaging service specification (ebMS2) states: 843 "Note: In the context of an ebXML business process model, an action equates to the lowest possible role based activity in the Business Process [ebBPSS] (requesting or responding role) and a service is a set of related actions for an authorized role within a party." However, the CPPA spec says that the service element in the CPA (that maps to the service element in the MS header) MUST be the uuid of the BPSS process specification. Dale> Yes, we are not very happy with uuid being used as service, but that was what BPSS said to use. It means that a BPSS instance can only be one service. That conflicts with the statement in the ebMS specification and also seems counter-intuitive. The BPSS process specification is a much higher level element than a single party service. Dale> Agreed. The ebXML CPP / CPA specification (ebcpp-2.0) states: 1225 "If the Process-Specification document is defined by the ebXML Business Process Specification Schema[ebBPSS], then the value of the Service element MUST be the uuid (URI) attribute specified for the ProcessSpecification element in the Business Process Specification Schema instance document. " Can someone confirm the correct interpretation? Dale> Yes we hope to reach a new realignment on these notions. We want to allow that multiparty BPSS instances have multiple services. That would be a step in straightening this out I think you would agree. Steve Capell Red Wahoo Pty Ltd +61 410 437854 Steve Capell Red Wahoo Pty Ltd +61 410 437854 -----Original Message----- From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com] Sent: Wednesday, 8 September 2004 11:57 PM To: Steve Capell; Sacha Schlegel; ebxml-cppa Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] Why is there no port attribute in the protocolType.type orendpointType.type elements? Hi Sacha, Steve Capell is correct; CPPA currently handles endpoint information by using a URL. But we are working on the extensibility points for the 2.1 maintenance version so if there are needs for generalizations it is a good time to mention them. There are other mechanisms under discussion in the WS arena for referencing services and endpoints. Mostly these are for runtime exchange of information. Perhaps we need to document which types of runtime mechanism are used to exchange endpoint information? Dale Moberg -----Original Message----- From: Steve Capell [mailto:steve.capell@redwahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 3:03 AM To: 'Sacha Schlegel'; 'ebxml-cppa' Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] Why is there no port attribute in the protocolType.type orendpointType.type elements? Wouldn't you just specify that in the URL? Eg to specify port 8888 for http: http://b2b.acme.com:8888/invoiceService Regards, Steve Capell Red Wahoo Pty Ltd +61 410 437854 -----Original Message----- From: Sacha Schlegel [mailto:sacha_oasis@schlegel.li] Sent: Wednesday, 8 September 2004 7:55 PM To: ebxml-cppa Subject: [ebxml-cppa] Why is there no port attribute in the protocolType.type orendpointType.type elements? Hi CPPA team Just doing some tests I am wondering where people can set ports (eg http goes to port 80) in a CPP or CPA. What if they want to set specific ports, eg HTTP goes to port 143534 The points where I was expecting this information were protocolType.type or endpointType.type Am I missing something? Kind regards Sacha To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-cppa/members/leave_wo rkgroup.php. To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-cppa/members/leave_wo rkgr oup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]