RE: [ebxml-jc] [Fwd: Re: ebBP 8/24/2004: ebXML Spec Mapping for ebBP]

[Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

Title: RE: [ebxml-jc] [Fwd: Re: ebBP 8/24/2004: ebXML Spec Mapping for ebBP]

Hello:

call right now ! meeting number is different !

Event Description:
Host: Fujitsu
Toll only :  1-512-225-3050
Participant code: 716071

-----Original Message-----
From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@sun.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 9:03 AM
To: 'ebxml-jc@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: [ebxml-jc] [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.
>

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-jc/members/leave_workgroup.php.