[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: PIP IDs
Yep, the parties must agree of the semantics of the invocation elements. In case of absence of a community of use Profile, a negotiated CPA, is the place. In cases of community of use Profile, in this case verticals that use the RosettaNet Profile, it may not be required to be in an agreement, but implied within the scope of community interoperability. This is all a matter of stacking profiles, starting at using SOAP, then ebXML's SOAP profile, then RossettaNet Profile, etc, with narrowing interoperability as the stack goes higher. As soon as there is a community ebXML Profile, the need for a CPA comes in question. Ralf B: capture for our MSH concept revision....... Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer XML Industry Enablement IBM e-business Standards Strategy 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519) srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074 Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS on 07/19/2001 12:11:05 PM To: Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS cc: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>, David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>, Burdett David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>, Pete Wenzel <Pete.Wenzel@RosettaNet.org>, ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: PIP IDs Yes, an arbitrary hierarchy of elements might solve some of the routing problems we have been turning up. However it has to be designed in such a way that each party to a CPA understands the other party's hieararchy. In other words, both parties must agree to the meaning of each element and the hierarchy has to be expressable both in the message header and in the CPA. I don't think this is a problem; it is a piece of work to do. I believe that the authorized roles and refToMessageId will also have to be part of that routing information as mentioned in prior postings. Regards, Marty ************************************************************************************* 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 ************************************************************************************* Scott Hinkelman 07/19/2001 02:41 PM To: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com> cc: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>, Burdett David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>, Pete Wenzel <Pete.Wenzel@RosettaNet.org> From: Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS Subject: Re: PIP IDs (Document link: Martin W. Sachs) >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. Again, my view on this is to define a Qualified Invocation sequence generically with an arbitrary number of tags, and drop the tag names "Service" and "Action". Just as ebXML Message Service defines a SOAP+Attachments Profile, RosettaNet would define an ebXML Message Service Profile, which would contain mapping to its PIP,etc,etc, (its invocation qualification). Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer XML Industry Enablement IBM e-business Standards Strategy 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519) srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074 Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com> on 07/19/2001 09:03:32 AM To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> cc: Burdett David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>, Pete Wenzel <Pete.Wenzel@RosettaNet.org> Subject: Re: PIP IDs Marty, 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. Regards, -Arvola 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. Regards, Marty ************************************************************************************* 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" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> cc: ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> 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 Quote)? <eb:Service>urn:services:RNet</eb:Service> <eb:Action>PIP3A1</eb:Action> Regards, David Fischer Drummond Group. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-msg-request@lists.oasis-open.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-cppa-request@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC