RE: Collaboration Services (was: Business Service Interface)

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

Nothing really got resolved at the F2F except the technical content of the
team requirements document.  I believe that the consensus of the group that
was present was to start with the tpaML sequencing rules and later add a
more general orchestration representation, perhaps an ECA state machine
representation. There is a timing question - what can we hope to complete
for a May deliverable?

The actual experience of the IBM Research team is with OBI and RosettaNet,
for which the tpaML sequencing rules appear to be sufficient.  At the time
we wanted to firm up a specification, we were having a lot of inconclusive
arguments about more general orchestration and we didn't have a good use
case for it at the time, so we went ahead with what you see.  We understand
that something more general is needed and will be working with the BP team
on this.

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



Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com> on 10/23/2000 08:22:13 AM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   "ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>,
      "'ebXML-BP@llists.ebxml.org'" <ebXML-BP@lists.ebxml.org>
Subject:  RE: Collaboration Services (was: Business Service Interface)



<Martin Sachs>
The IBM tpaML proposal includes sequencing rules which specify the required
order in which each party can issue messages to the other party.  This
appears to cover a large number of the practical cases.  The run-time
middleware can verify whether the sequencing rules are being obeyed. At the
TP team Face to Face earlier this month, we spoke about developing a more
general model such as a event-condition-action state machine for the cases
where the tpaML sequencing rules are not sufficient.
</Martin Sachs>

Marty, at the F2F meeting, did the differences between the sequencing
approaches of TP and the BP metamodel get resolved?

Also, got any examples of what you are thinking of for the
"large number of practical cases"?  I'm not being skeptical,
just trying to get a handle on what business scenarios people
have in mind for sequencing rules.  I assume you've seen
some of the ones I posted recently in this thread.  If you
listed some previously and I missed them, let me know
and I'll go to the archives.

Regards,
Bob Haugen