OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-iic message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: [Fwd: [ebxml-iic] BPSS test scope issue]]


"BSI" is one of those terms that people fling around without having a clear 
idea of its definition.

The ebXML Architecture group may have discussed something called "BSI" but 
"BSI" does not appear in version 1.0.4 of the Technical Architecture 
specification, which I believe is the most recent version. Also, "BSI" does 
not appear in the message service specification, version 2.

If I remember correctly, the term "BSI" came from a proposal by Stefano 
Pogliani.  To me, Stefano's proposal used the term "BSI" to refer to the 
thick layer of middleware between the business application and the message 
service.  In other words, Stefano's BSI was the runtime middleware and not 
the thin abstraction that we usually think of as an interface. It was 
neither the abstract (and non-existent) interface to the messaging service 
nor an abstract interface between two collaborating instance of an application.

I searched BPSS 1.05  on "BSI."  I agree with what Boonserm found. In 
particular, as Boonserm notes, 7.2 says "...ebxml-compliant software is 
being specified to execute Business Collaborations. The generic term for 
such software is a Business Service Interface (BSI)."  This more or less 
agrees with my recollection of what Stefano Pogliani called BSI.

As a runtime system, a BSI definitely needs configuration information from 
both the BPSS instance document and the associated CPA.

Whether you call the run-time middleware a BSI or something else, ebXML 
interoperability testing ultimately has to be concerned with the run-time 
middleware and whether different vendors' run-time middleware 
implementations can interoperate.

Regards,
Marty

At 08:50 PM 7/16/2003 -0600, Monica J. Martin wrote:
>Serm,
>I would suggest we discuss this further.  I thought you should see a brief 
>response I solicited from Dale Moberg. I'll answer your comments and 
>questions to me under separate cover.
>Thanks.
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject:        RE: [Fwd: [ebxml-iic] BPSS test scope issue]
>Date:   Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:14:24 -0700
>From:   Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
>To:     Monica J. Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>, Jean-Jacques Dubray 
><jjd@eigner.com>
>
>
>
>I think the architiecture group defined BSI to be those interfaces
>existing between businesses while collaborating. BSI is not an interface
>between a higher and lower layer, but between the same layer at
>different nodes.
>
>And it is the interface for collaboration, not configuration. So it is
>the definition of the "runtime" contract between collaboration services.
>
>So CPPA stuff is excluded from BSI, because it pertains to configuration
>of the runtime service on the lower layers of the protocol
>stack(binding/implementation), and not the definition of the business
>processes or of the information content exchanged.
>
>Hope that helps some.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:monica.martin@sun.com] Sent: Wednesday, 
>July 16, 2003 1:17 PM
>To: Jean-Jacques Dubray
>Cc: Monica Martin; Dale Moberg
>Subject: [Fwd: [ebxml-iic] BPSS test scope issue]
>
>
>JJ (and Dale),
>I'd like your take on what Serm has deduced. This maps back to the need to 
>have a clearer definition of BSI and some functional boundaries. The test 
>requirements analysis may assist in doing that, albeit not perhaps in the 
>timeframe for 1.1.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject:        [ebxml-iic] BPSS test scope issue
>Date:   Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:48:33 -0400
>From:   Boonserm (Serm) Kulvatunyou <serm@nist.gov>
>Reply-To:       Boonserm (Serm) Kulvatunyou <serm@nist.gov>
>To:     <ebxml-iic@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
>
>
>The question is "are we testing the whole BSI?", since earlier Jacques 
>calls this BPSS testing as BSI testing. From the review of BPSS (quoted 
>below), it seems that BSI is assumed to cover the all the B2B 
>Collaboration management (which implies CPP and CPA as well). So I think
>
>that if we were to focus the testing on BPSS Spec only we should decompose 
>the tests into groups and these tests won't cover the whole
>BSI.
>
>As I mentioned in the con call, BPSS spec divides the interop requirements 
>into Biz Trax and Biz Coll levels. And as of version 1.05, only Biz Tranx 
>level is required. The question is then (I think this is also Monica 
>question) how we should factor the MSH related parameters (e.g., tamper 
>proof, authorization required, etc.) into these interop requirements. Do 
>we care about these at all or we group these parameter as another set of 
>(vertical) interop requirements (between BSI and MSH) or we should profile 
>these parameters. My feeling is that the second option is a good option 
>b/c 1) these are business/scenario specific requirements 2) dependent on 
>MSH 3) they are not indicated as requirements in the BPSS spec (see 
>section 7.6 and 7.7), and 4) these parameters do not directly effect the 
>success of a tranx/coll, they indicate the necessities to collaborate, 
>i.e, the collaboration wouldn't
>
>even start if one partner does not have those required capabilities.
>
>In conclusion my thougt is to decompose the BPSS test requirments into
>
>1 - Biz Tranx level state management
>
>2 - Biz collaboration level state management
>
>3 - BSI-MSI interoperability.
>
>I am not sure about its interaction with CPPA spec.
>
>Quotes from BPSS spec:
>
>Line 620 BPSS - The ebXML Business Process Specification Schema should be 
>used wherever
>
>ebXML compliant software is being specified to execute Business 
>Collaborations.
>
>The generic term for such software is a Business Service Interface
>(BSI).
>
>The ebXML Business Process Specification Schema is used to specify the
>
>business process related configuration parameters for configuring a BSI
>to
>
>execute these collaborations.
>
>Line 631 of BPSS - Run-time transaction and collaboration semantics that
>
>the ebXML
>
>Business Process Specification Schema specifies and the Business
>
>Service Interface (BSI) is expected to manage.
>
>Line 672 of BPSS - Guided by the CPP and CPA specifications the resulting 
>XML document then
>
>becomes the configuration file for one or more Business Service Interfaces 
>(BSI),
>
>i.e. the software that will actually manage either partner's participation 
>in the
>
>collaboration.
>
>*** These indicates that BSI scope also includes CPP/CPA
>- Serm
>New! NIST Testbed Web Site -
>http://www.mel.nist.gov/msid/oagnisttestbed/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------
>Boonserm (Serm) Kulvatunyou, Ph.D.
>Guest Researcher
>Manufacturing System Integration Division.
>National Institute of Standards and Technology
>On Assigment from Oak Ridge Associated Universities
>100 Bureau Dr. MS 8260 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8260
>phone: 301-975-6775, fax: 301-975-4482
>mail: serm@nist.gov <mailto:serm@nist.gov>, http://serm.ws
>
>
>
>
>
>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-iic/members/leave_workgroup.php
>

*************************************
Martin Sachs
standards architect
Cyclone Commerce
msachs@cyclonecommerce.com 




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]