RE: Example RN PIP 3A4 in BPSS

[Jean-Jacques Dubray <jjdubray@exceloncorp.com>]

Yes, this is what I meant. This is the benefit of decoupling sequencing
rules from document format. I am sure that most people would agree that they
want to keep their collaboration definition identical when B2B standards
come up with new and improved releases.

For instance, the OAG, which is one of the oldest and most respectable of
these standard bodies, has now published 182 document schemas, that are
supporting about 60 different collaborations in 7 major releases (not to
count the minor releases). I can't imagine people tweaking their business
processes because a format has changed.

Of course this is a design guideline, it is good that the specification is
open enough to support the case where one has no other choice but to write
an XPath on the content on the message like in the case of RN.

Not to mention that since this collaboration definition is designed to
provide a view agreeable by two or more parties, we will not avoid writing
XPath predicates that may start discussions such as "I meant this element
not this one"...

JJ-



-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Haugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 12:16 PM
To: 'jj@exceloncorp.com'; '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

Jean-Jacques,

Would this be an accurate paraphrase of the idea you expressed below:
keep collaboration logic in the collaboration model - don't make it
dependent
on the document contents - so you can use the same collaboration
logic with different document formats?

(I'm not trying to rewrite your message, just to confirm that I understand
the idea, which I think I support...)

Thanks,
Bob Haugen


-----Original Message-----
From:   Jean-Jacques Dubray [SMTP:jjdubray@exceloncorp.com]
Sent:   Monday, May 07, 2001 9:56 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


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