RE: spec schema sample for POC + issues

["Sharma, Nita" <nsharma@netfish.com>]

Hi,

this is the business scenario that has been proposed today for the Vienna
POC. It has more details that Sig will be putting together. So in case of
any feedback/issues/comments we require to identify them ASAP. We can
discuss this during the conf call tomorrow.

The spec schema will now require to reflect these changes and not sure if we
call it a dropship scenario

Cheers

- Nita


-----Original Message-----
From: Karsten Riemer [mailto:Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 7:13 AM
To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: spec schema sample for POC + issues


As discussed in yesterday's BP/CC I have created a draft of a spec schema
sample for the "DropShip" business process that is being proposed for the
POC.
The POC meeting is happening today, so it is likely that the flow or content
will change. 
This e-mail is more to describe issues/questions I came across while writing
the .xml

I started with the attached (dropship7) document from the analysis group,
and
mapped as closely as I could to the table specifying the binary
collaborations, transactions, and roles. The result is attached
dropshipSamples.xml. (For POC the current thinking is to skip the "Ship
Goods"
collaboration so I didn't do that one)

Here are the issues/questions I came across:

1.  Four out of the six binary collaborations are single transaction. Under
spec schema v0.99 I have to create a separate binary collaboration for each
transaction. There are duplicated attributes at the BinaryCollaboration and
BusinessTransaction levels, and it is unclear for a single transaction
collaboration which level is most relevant to use (beginsWhen, endsWhen,
requires, resultsIn)

2.  The Product Fulfillment binary collaboration expects to use different
role
names for each of its two transactions. Under spec schema v0.99 role names
must be the same for all transactions within a binary collaboration.

3.  The Inventory Management binary collaboration contains two alternative
ways of obtaining an inventory report, one by request, and one unsolicited.
In
either case the content and structure of the report document(s) is the same.
Under spec schema v0.99 I have to define separate BusinessTransactions for
the
two alternate ways, each with its own unique DocumentFlow. (This is the same
issue as issue # 116 by William Kammerer)

4.  As per 1. above, you cannot under v0.99 create a CPP or CPA that
declares
support for a single transaction, or a single document flow, unless you
create
a binary collaboration containing that transaction.

These three issues would be addressed if we adopted my proposal as per issue
#124, and it would also make us more compatible with current RosettaNet
thinking and upcoming OMG/EDOC specification. I attach my original e-mail
with
that proposal.

thanks,
-karsten

Business Scenario for Vienna POC.doc