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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-msg message

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

Subject: Re: Service and action elements


Based on what you have said below, I believe that the correct answer is
that the value of Service should be the name of the binary collaboration
from which the message was issued and the value of Action should be the
name of the business transaction that issued the message.   Since both
sender and recipient are using the same BPSS instance document, the names
should be understood by the recipient and mapped to the correct method call
to process the message.

You are correct that the definitions must come from one source and both
parties must agree to abide by it.  If there is a CPA, that CPA is pointing
to the one BPSS instance document that both parties have agreed to use.

If there is no CPA, then the two parties must exchange the Service and
Action information outband.

I believe that the descriptions of Service and Action in the Message
Service specification are a bit too vague to assure interoperability. Since
each party must know the values of Service and Action that apply to the
other party, some means of obtaining that knowledge should be specified.
Examples of points to be made:

   If the two parties are using a CPA and single BPSS instance document,
   the value of Service SHALL be the value the name attribute of the binary
   collaboration that sent the message, and the value of Action SHALL be
   the value of the name attribute of the business transaction that sent
   the message.

   If the two parties are not using a CPA, they must exchange the values of
   Service and Action outband.

I have copied your reply and my reply to the ebXML-MSG and ebXML-BP lists
in the hope of additional discussion.



Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com

michael.m.ho@sybase.com on 07/06/2001 02:57:18 PM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   michael.m.ho@sybase.com
Subject:  Service and action elements

Hi Marty:

We are not clear on how the service and action elements are used within
a business collaboration. I read the minutes from the Vienna F2F meeting
and cannot come to a conclusion on the usage of these elements.

So far, it has been stated that Service refer to a set of BT and action
to the BT itself. One would equate Service to the binary collaboration.
this interpretation creates the following issue. If we have 2
A and B. Collaboration A uses collaboration B as one of its activities and
furthermore, B is the first activity within A. The CPA specifies that both
collaboration A and B (by itself) is valid between the two partners.
When collaboration A starts, we starts B and the first message from a BT
within B arrives, do we expect the Service element to carry collaboration A
or B?
If it carries the name of collaboration B, we cannot tell whether it is for
or B (by itself). If it carries A, does it mean that all message has A as
service elements? It seems that it will be better if we have a composite
e.g. A.B or something so we can distinguish the different activities within

Perhaps our assumption that mulitple collaborations within a CPA is not
correct. But Tony seems to think that it can represent more than one
service. (see below)

Could it be that Service is a sequence of "labels" created by the author
of the BPSS and both partners uses the same list of "labels".

In the minutes below, it talks of a buy service and sell service or
service. It seems that the definition of either must come from one source
and both parties agree to abide by it to make any sense.

If these confusions are already addressed in other documents/specifications
we would really appreciate that you can let us know where they may be.
I search for quite some time and cannot find any. The current versions of
ebXML specifications do not clarify the confusion for us.

Sybase eBD (e-Business Division)

Joint meeting with TRP Team (1 of 2)

We held a lengthy discussion intended to coordinate our definitions of
service and action.  Topics included how to map those terms to constituents
of the BPSS model, and whether two parties collaborate via a pair of
complementary services, e.g., buying and selling services, or share one
overall service, e.g., buy-sell.  Tony expressed a strong preference for
the first interpretation as being consistent with common usage, e.g., WSDL.
We discussed characterizing service as a set of one or more related
business transactions from BPSS, and action as a requesting business
activity or responding business activity (also from BPSS).

Service and Action

We talked about two alternative revisions as detailed in Marty's May 3,
2001 posting on "Proposal for improvements to ServiceBinding and Override
elements".    By consensus, the team preferred the first proposal ?
removing the name attribute of the ServiceBinding element and adding a
Service sub-element that has a type attribute.  We agreed to adopt that
change pending Chris' availability to update the DTD, XSD, and examples
accordingly.  [On Wednesday, we reviewed the proposal with Chris whereupon
he agreed to implement the necessary changes.]

In preparation for a joint meeting with TRP, we discussed the relationship
between CPP/CPA and TRP/BP notions of service, action, binary collaboration
and role.  It was noted that authorizing roles could serve as a filter on a
BPSS document that MAY yield a unique binary collaboration.  There was
discussion, but not consensus, about whether there should be a one-to-one
relationship between a CPP and a service.  (Your correspondent felt that it
should be possible for a CPP to represent more than on service.

Joint meeting with TRP (2 of 2)

We met again with the TRP team to revisit the terms service and action.
Scott Hinkelman presented a diagram that he and David Burdett prepared to
show the relation between those terms as conceived by the BP and TRP teams
(see Scott's May 8, 2001 posting to the TRP list on the subject of "BP/TRP
Service/Action discussion diagram in Vienna".  Following discussion of the
diagram, the approximate consensus of the TRP team seemed to be as follows:

    Action equates to a Requesting or Responding Business Activity
    Service is a set of related actions for a single AuthorizedRole
supported by a party

After the TP team returned to its own meeting room, we concluded that our
specification is still aligned with TRP usage and that no change to our
specification was necessitated by the discussion.

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC