RE: PIP IDs

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

David,

Please forgive my repetition, but...

Your two points:

   look  up the CPA from the CPA ID  and route the message to the endpoint
   identified, or

   look  up the Party, Service and Action in a table to identify where to
   send the  message to.

are really one and the same since any sensible CPA tool will digest the CPA
into a table that allows looking up the routing information in the most
efficient manner.  The only difference between them is where the table
comes from.

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
*************************************************************************************



"Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 07/19/2001 03:17:41 PM

To:   "'Arvola Chan'" <arvola@tibco.com>, Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,
      David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>
cc:   ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>, Pete Wenzel
      <Pete.Wenzel@RosettaNet.org>
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:

   look  up the CPA from the CPA ID  and route the message to the endpoint
   identified, or
   look  up the Party, Service and Action in a table to identify where to
   send the  message to.

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 ..

David

-----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


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