[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: PIP IDs
... and I will be pleased to contribute although for practical purposes I
don't think I will be able to attend the meetings myself.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 7:58 PM
To: Burdett, David
Cc: 'Dale Moberg'; Arvola Chan; David Fischer; ebXML Msg; Pete Wenzel
Subject: RE: PIP IDs
David,
Support for intermediaries is already on the CPPA team's proposed work
items list. Your contribution will be welcome.
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 07/27/2001 09:14:09 PM
To: "'Dale Moberg'" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>, Martin W
Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>, David Fischer
<david@drummondgroup.com>, ebXML Msg
<ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>, Pete Wenzel
<Pete.Wenzel@RosettaNet.org>
Subject: RE: PIP IDs
Dale
You said ...
>>> There may be reasons to not be interested in trying to make
peer-to-peer collaboration configuration easier. One would be that you are
interested in alternative non peer-to-peer architectures based
on "nanny intermediaries." That might explain a lack of interestin CPPs
and CPAs, <<<
This is not helpful and unfair.
You seem to be suggesting (forgive me if I am wrong) that I, and therefore
Commerce One, are against the use of CPAs for commercial reasons. This is
just not true.
I could also be completely scurrilous and suggest that the reason the CPA
spec only considers peer-to-peer is to make life more difficult for
companies that require the use of intermediaries ... but that would not be
helpful and probably not true either.
So lets get to the real reasons ...
Commerce One works in standards groups for the reasons many companies do,
partly altruistic partly commercial. The altruistic bit means that if you
are developing standards you must be sensitive to the needs of others,
even if those needs help your competitors and not your own company. The
commercial bit means that if a standard that you want to use does not meet
your own needs then you musty strive to get the standard changed. The
current CPA spec falls into this latter category as, in my opinion (or is
that perception?)it only properly supports peer-to-peer and does not work
effectively when intermediaries are involved
I think we should work together to fix the CPA spec so that it supports
peer-to-peer and intermediary based architectures equally well. We will
all get a better spec by doing that.
Does this make sense?I'm prepared to commit myself and Commerce One to
help make this happen. Do you agree?
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:14 AM
To: Burdett, David; Martin W Sachs
Cc: Arvola Chan; David Fischer; ebXML Msg; Pete Wenzel
Subject: RE: PIP IDs
David,
I do not think that any illustrative remarks Marty might
have provided about how a MSH
might store its configuration data forms a
basis for showing some technical shortcoming
in CPPs or CPAs.
The essential point is that the CPP and CPA schemas define
standardized patterns to exchange(!) collaboration protocol
profiles and agreements. The internal or distributed "storage"
of that information (along with other configuration information
the MSH will need) is not something we are specifying. So
the alternative storage options you raise
are irrelevant to the basic purpose
of CPPs and CPAs-- which is the specification of standardized
ways to exchange information about collaboration protocols.
This standardization is hoped to be one step in a continuing
effort to make configuration of collaborations more automated
and less onerous (less costly) for IS departments.
Likewise, while we do in effect insist that there be one
"primary key" to a collaboration profile record in its internal
representation (whatever that might be) which is, of
course, the cpaid, we do not assert that the cpaid is the only
primary key, or even that the cpaid is the primary key
that any MSH must use as a primary key
in its implementation.
So I do not believe that your point that we are somehow constraining
software implementations is one that has a very substantial foundation.
There may be reasons to not be interested in trying to make
peer-to-peer collaboration configuration easier. One would be that
you are interested in alternative non peer-to-peer architectures based
on "nanny intermediaries." That might explain a lack of interest
in CPPs and CPAs, though I think even nanny architectures will ultimately
benefit from things similar to CPPs and CPAs, such as the descendents
of WSDL, or the joint offspring of our pioneer CPPA and WSDL ancestors.
But I do not think that your lack of interest in such technologies
should be regarded as a technical problem to solve by those of us who
are interested in pursuing these technologies.
Dale Moberg
-----Original Message-----
From: Burdett, David
Sent: Wed 7/25/2001 9:50 AM
To: 'Martin W Sachs'
Cc: 'Arvola Chan'; David Fischer; ebXML Msg; Pete Wenzel
Subject: RE: PIP IDs
Marty
Apologies for the delay in responding ... I've been busy elsewhere.
I agree with everything you say about how databases work and how they
**could** be used to solve the problem. It's just that you are
pre-supposing
a particular internal design for a solution when there are other
alternatives. I also disagree that the information **has** to be entered
into each partners system.
For example, a community of users, e.g. RosettaNet could define a set of
three or four standard "agreements" that everyone should use for messaging
which exclude partner specific information, e.g. URLs and certificates.
The
URL and other information could then be recorded in a registry (UDDI?)
which
a trading partner could look up to determine where to send a message. This
information could also be cached.
Once the URL was determined, then a message could be sent where the CPAId
referenced one of the "standard" agreements. If the sender of the message
was not previously to the message recipient then they could look up the
information in the registry and decide what to do with the message.
Marty, I am not saying that your approach is wrong, it's just that there
are
alternaive equally valid approaches which the current definition of the
CPA
does not easily support. I think we should support both. Do you agree?
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 7:17 AM
To: Burdett, David
Cc: 'Arvola Chan'; David Fischer; ebXML Msg; Pete Wenzel
Subject: RE: PIP IDs
David,
The usual approach to digesting information from CPAs is to have a
database
that has an entry for each CPA. Hence your problem about all the messages
from company A to company B going to the same endpoint doesn't exist. For
each message, the middleware will look at the CPAId and get the right
information out of the database. Of course, once a conversation starts, a
smart system will cache the configuration information for that
conversation
so it doesn't have to go back to a disk-based database on every message.
Database technology has existed for generations that can execute query or
an update against multiple selected rows.
The rule in your second paragraph is certainly support when all those
messages are associated with the same CPA. For the more general case that
you have in mind, as I said, database technology is well up to it. ...and
don't forget that the changes you have in mind are very infrequent
compared
to the frequency of messages in a large, active system.
Your third paragraph: I disagree. The current perception is that whether
there is a CPA or not, the configuration information has to be entered
into
each partner's system and managed there. Some people believe that the
CPA,
with suitable tools, is a lot easier to use than the manual methods.
****************************************************************************
*********
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 04:51:03
PM
To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: "'Arvola Chan'" <arvola@tibco.com>, David Fischer
<david@drummondgroup.com>, ebXML Msg
<ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>, Pete Wenzel
<Pete.Wenzel@RosettaNet.org>
Subject: RE: PIP IDs
Marty
I agree that a sensible CPA tool should digest the CPA into a table that
allows look up in an efficient manner. The problem is that I am not sure
that it would (or could) actually do it. For example, if you wanted to use
a
very simple routing rule, e.g. "all the messages that company xyz sends to
IBM go to one URL", then the CPA processor would have to **infer** this
rule
from analyzing all the CPAs that define the individual collaborations
between xyz co and IBM. This type of inference processing is both hard to
do
and un-reliable since the inference processor cannot assume that the next
CPA it receives will not follow the rule. Secondly, if you wanted to
change
the URL for all these messages then you would have to change all the CPAs
rather than just change the single simple rule.
To solve this problem, you need to be able to express **directly** a rule
in
its simplest form, (e.g. all messages from xyz co for IBM go to one URL).
However the current CPA structure doesn't support this type of rule
definition (Is that correct?).
Finally, the current perception of a CPA is, IMO, that it is the **only**
way to specify the information required for ebXML Messaging to work when
clearly there could be more appropriate ways of specifying the information
for some circumstances. Hence my reasons for wanting to be able to use
ebXML
Messaging without CPAs.
Finally, I do think that CPAs are a good idea especially where you have
point-to-point communication, they're just not the only good idea ;)
Regards
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 12:48 PM
To: Burdett, David
Cc: 'Arvola Chan'; David Fischer; ebXML Msg; Pete Wenzel
Subject: RE: PIP IDs
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
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-msg-request@lists.oasis-open.org
------------------------------------------------------------------
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-msg-request@lists.oasis-open.org
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-msg-request@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC