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: PIP IDs

Thanks Arvola !! You have saved me from writing an email. I absolutely concur with what you say ... you can have one "service" supporting multiple different business transactions. If we do this it also means that we can have one conversation involving multiple different business transactions, e.g. a 3A4 (Create Purchase Order) followed by a 3A8 (Change Purchase Order) where the change purchase order was for the order created by the create purchase order.
Another use case is where you can have the same service used in multiple different collaborations for example consider the following two collaborations:
Example 1, Invoice Payment:
  1. BT1 - Present Invoice
  2. BT2 - Make Payment
Example 2, Pay Refund:
  1. BT1 - Request Refund
  2. BT2 - Make Payment
Both of these involve making a payment which, in Business Transaction terms, would be carried out the same way.
Where I think it gets really critical to separate the two is when you want to route messages. If Party, Service and Action are always the same, irrespective of the business process in which they are being used then you can use these three fields for routing purposes in a consistent way.
On reflection this I think is one of the issues I have with always requiring a CPA as defined in the CPA/CPP spec as you can actually quite reasonably do routing in two different ways:
The former allows you to vary the endpoint very flexibly and alter where you send a message to depending on the business process you are in, the latter allows you to have simpler rules but with less flexibility.
I think both use cases are valid ... and required ..
-----Original Message-----
From: Arvola Chan [mailto:arvola@tibco.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 9:04 AM
To: Martin W Sachs; David Fischer
Cc: Burdett, David; ebXML Msg; Pete Wenzel
Subject: Re: PIP IDs

Up to now, RosettaNet PIPs are either request-response (two-actions) or notification (one-action) style business processes. Earlier versions of PIP 3A4 are an exception in the sense that PIP 3A4 covers Create Purchase Order (request-response), Change Purchase Order (request-response) and Cancel Purchase Order (request-response) interactions. Recently, PIP 3A4 has been split into 3A4 (Create Purchase Order), 3A8 (Change Purchase Order), and 3A9 (Cancel Purchase Order) in order to achieve some degree of uniformity across PIPs (I believe). Therefore, I think it is reasonable to equate existing RosettaNet PIPs with BPSS Business Transactions.
In the RosettaNet message header, there are separate elements to identify the PIP ID, the PIP action and the Service. Multiple PIPs may be implemented by the same service, e.g., there may be a Buyer service implementing PIPs 3A4, 3A8, 3A9 from the buyer perspective, and a Seller service implementing the same PIPs from the seller perspective.
I don't think we should equate PIP ID with Service and action with "the particular business transaction within the PIP". Otherwise, we will not be able to capture the role information, e.g., the ability to distinguish a Buyer Service from a Seller Service, and a request action from a response action.
From the RosettaNet point of view, it will be desirable if we can have distinct Service, PIP (equivalently BPSS Business Transaction), and action elements in the message header. Alternatively, we can use the Service element to capture role information (e.g., Buyer vs Seller), and use the Action element to capture the PIP ID. Whether we are dealing with a request action or a response action will have to be inferred from the Service element.
Arvola Chan (arvola@tibco.com)
TIBCO Software (on loan to RosettaNet)
+1-650-846-5046 (US-Pacific)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin W Sachs" <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>
To: "David Fischer" <david@drummondgroup.com>
Cc: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>; "ebXML Msg" <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: PIP IDs

In my opinion it makes more sense for Service to point to the PIP ID and
action to point to the particular business transaction within the PIP. In
other words one execution of a PIP is a conversation.  I believe that some
of the PIPs include multiple business transactions.



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

David Fischer <
david@drummondgroup.com> on 07/19/2001 10:45:54 AM

To:   "Burdett, David" <
cc:   ebXML Msg <
Subject:  PIP IDs

David, in the F2F you mentioned the need for a new element to contain
industry specific business process identifiers such as a RosettaNet PIP
identifier. Could this be done with Service/Action where the Service would
be something like RNet and the Action something like PIP3A1 (Request



David Fischer
Drummond Group.

To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to:

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC