[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: PIP IDs
Folks, I think I agree with Scott, Arvola and Marty :). Bottomline is, the current model based on the ConversationId, Service and Action is too inadequate to represent an arbitrarily large "conversation", that is potentially "multilateral" (as opposed to the current bilateral) and consists of >= 1 sub bilateral business processes. I think this would be one of important pieces of work for the next version of the MS spec. We need to come up with a more comprehensive, generic, robust and extensible model of a "conversation", that identifies a specific exchange belonging to a "conversation", a business process instance within, the specific action with that process, the originating and receiving parties, the originating and receiving service entities etc. Regards, Prasad -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: PIP IDs Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:41:19 -0700 From: Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com> To: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com> CC: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.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> >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.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC