OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel-uc message

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

Subject: Re: [wsbpel-uc] Is BPEL robust enough for e-business?


I would also add OASIS BCM to that list and CPA.

If you could define a CPA for a WSDL that BPEL
could use - then you'd have the write "glue".

The problem right now is that WSDL is like trying
to hold water in your hands - too many moving
parts - and difficult to create structures that are
easily configurable and re-usable.

Of course this use case was not part of the
original W3C WSDL requirements - so no
surprise that it does not directly support this.

The BCM team has already created patterns
for MoAs and other business instruments
that can control and configure a business
relationship - including the choice point

Thanks, DW.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Evdemon" <jevdemon@microsoft.com>
To: <wsbpel-uc@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 1:31 PM
Subject: [wsbpel-uc] Is BPEL robust enough for e-business?

Just saw this:

Someone asks about using BPEL with RosettaNet and the response is:

"Conceptually, RosettaNet should be able to focus on the business
aspects of the business process and express it in any of the business
process languages (like BPSS, BPEL4WS etc). In reality however, BPEL4WS
is simply not robust enough in its current form, to be adopted by a
business-centric process specification organization. The origins of
BPEL4WS are from the server workflow and application integration areas.
It is important to note that the needs of trading partners wishing to
engage in legally binding business-centric processes are completely
different from the processes required to integrate applications, or
internal workflows. The current BPEL4WS does not support the business
semantic needs of B2B trading, and this is why RosettaNet cannot express
its PIPs (ebusiness process specifications) in BPEL4WS"

The Use Case subgroup can help defend against this way of thinking.

The writer is correct in his assumption that BPEL alone is not robust
enough to support legal business agreements.  However, a BPEL
representation of a BCF business process would provide the level of
robustness needed to communicate legally-binding business agreements.

Although BPEL was not initially designed to support/express business
semantic needs, there is no reason why we could not illustrate its use
with an initiative that does (such as BCF).


To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to

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