[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: ebBP 8/24/2004: ebXML Spec Mapping for ebBP]
I was asked to forward the starting list of discussion items related to the loosely coupled ebXML specifications. We hope to have a mapping in ebBP v2.0 that maps elements across the specifications to assist implementers. This is the second part of the discussion(s).......Thanks. >Moberg: Some comments inline. > > >mm1: * CPPA: > o Name/NameID > + Moberg/Nagahashi references: > >http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200408/msg00016.html > and >http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200408/msg00023.html > + Does CPPA now map to more than one service > >Dale>> CPPA could always map to several services. So to sharpen up the >issue that Monica >is raising: Can a single BPSS instance contain several "Services" (in >the sense that ebMS >uses that term)? Does ebMS wish to update its concept of "Service" to >align better with WSDL >or retain a generalized "Service" concept with WSDL as just one >specialization? Depending >on the resolution of these issues, we would need to explain what >information items would contain >"Service" values in a BPSS instance. At the moment we link "Service" to >ProcessSpecification/@uuid >when BPPS is used. This restricts us to saying that BPSS instance >defines one "Service". > > o OperationsMapping > + Does CPPA map to more than one service (CPPA now uses > the ProcessSpecification@uuid which means each BPSS > instance has one service in it). > + How does this relate to a web service(s)? >Dale>> OK, see above on this. > > o Influence on Service and Action/ActionContext > >Dale>> Definitely need to reconsider Action. ebXML action concept is >similar to the WSDL operation concept. >One notable exception is that a WSDL Operation with a MEP of >"request-response" will only have one name. >This convention derives from the early connection of WSDL to RPC, which >is lately less and less prominent. >[A function would have one name embracing both its input parameters as >well as its return values.] >For ebXML, two Action values are associated with a WSDL r-r MEP. Is this >a problem? We _could_ have the >request Action have the same value as the Response value (I think). It >does make the monitoring mapping >from ebMS back to BPSS more dependent on using information about the >document exchanged (namespace, GED >(global element declaration) > > o isLegallyBinding: HasLegalIntent [1] > + Negotiation of business process BT characteristics > >Dale> I like the name change. Is it proposed as something negotiable as >part of the CPPA? > > * ebMS > o Resolve MSI / BSI questions > >Dale> We first need to enumerate all the questions and then decide which >ones still cause confusion. >This would be a significant undertaking, and maybe should be a joint >effort. > > o Inclusion of payload services in ebMS v3.0 > + Validation parameters > >Dale> The extensibility of these services poses a problem of how to >document these extensions for use with >CPPA. > > o OperationsMapping > + Influence on Service (see above) > + Influence with web service (see above) > > o Clearer definition of differences of message vs. business > acknowledgments > >[1] Like that, so thanks David. > >Interactive session with other ebXML groups > > * ebXML IIC: They are now solidifying 3 test pseudo steps with three > process cases. I intend to send to the group for review as soon as > they are a bit further. > * Through JC: Liaisons > * Registry: Several user communities have asked about a shared > knowledge base. > * Context > >I've cc: other chairs so they are aware of these discussions. Comments? >Thank you. >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]