RE: Example RN PIP 3A4 in BPSS

[Race Bannon <race.bannon@ia.com>]

Good point, well-said.

Race Bannon, Ph.D.
Director of Training and Documentation
Information Architects
4064 Colony Road
Charlotte, NC  28211
Ph: 704/367-2105
Fx: 704/442-0693
Toll Free:  877/INFOARC x. 2105
iA:  http://www.ia.com
iA Education:  http://www.ia.com/ia/training/index.htm


-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:jjdubray@exceloncorp.com]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 10:56 AM
To: Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt); ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
Cc: 'ebxml-ccbp-analysis (E-mail)'; 'ebXML-PoC'
Subject: RE: Example RN PIP 3A4 in BPSS


Kurt:

Thanks for this great work.

I would like to emphasize one point: we should avoid using XPath expression
on the message document because this makes collaborations much less reusable
across standards. I understand that this is not feasible in the case of RN
but moving forward, a good design principle would be to use distinct
document formats to express different intend. The binding at the format
level would happen in the DocumentSpecification.

This might look like a little step one way or the other, however, converging
at the "business collaboration" level is even more important than converging
at the format level. Formats can most often be mapped to each other, it can
quickly become un-manageable to map and adapt business processes to a slew
of nearly identical collaborations. Once a collaboration is in place an
agreed upon by an industry or an eco-system, it is relatively simple to
manage N different document formats flowing through the same infrastructure
as they are nicely decoupled from each other.

Jean-Jacques Dubray, Chief Architect
eXcelon Corp.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt) [mailto:kkanaskie@lucent.com]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 12:51 PM
To: 'ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org'
Cc: 'ebxml-ccbp-analysis (E-mail)'; 'ebXML-PoC'
Subject: Example RN PIP 3A4 in BPSS

All,

Attached is an ebXML Business Process Specification XML document for
RosettaNet PIP 3A4 version 1.4 that I did as a personal POC. I think it is
correct, but if someone finds a mistake or I left something out, please let
me know. Some interesting points:
* Use of Packages to represent Cluster, Segment and PIP
* Use of guardExpression and XPath to determine the response type, since
RosettaNet uses the same message for both positive and negative responses.
* Use of XPath to reference other elements.
* Only 74 lines of XML for the entire PIP!
 <<BPSS_RN_PIP3A4_example.zip>>
Best regards,

P.S. I will not be able to attend the Vienna meeting, hope it is a great
one!

________________________________________________________________
Kurt Kanaskie
IT Architecture Strategy Group
Lucent Technologies
kkanaskie@lucent.com
(610) 778-1069



------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org