RE: Transition question

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

Thanks for your comments,

A BPSS specification cannot be executed ! who will execute it? There is
nobody in the middle to do that. It is the actions of the requesting and
responding parties that will be advance the state of the collaboration.

The question you are raising about status information is a really good one.
In one of the project I am working on, we have chosen to handle status
queries as independent collaborations, because their logic does not mesh up
well with the normal flow of the main collaboration. I actually don't know
if pre-conditions on business transaction definition could be used for that
purpose? However, it would be odd to have a state diagram based definition
with start/transition/states/transition/end and hanging on the side a
transaction that is enabled based on a precondition with no transition
leading to or leaving it.

JJ-

-----Original Message-----
From: Collier, Timothy R [mailto:timothy.r.collier@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 12:27 PM
To: 'Cory Casanave'; 'Jean-Jacques Dubray'; Karsten Riemer - Sun IR
Development; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: Transition question


Isn't this a very basic question - Is a BP specification intended to be
executable?  That is, must it be acyclic with only one in and one out?  I
can immediately see another pattern that has the same problem - query the
status of a PO. If a BP spec is to be executable, then those patterns must
be modeled in a way that is acyclic, and counterintuitive.  If a BP spec is
intended as a state diagram, then transition to self is valid, and should be
allowed (and possibly the multiple cardinality of ins and outs).


        $.02


                Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Cory Casanave [mailto:cory-c@enterprise-component.com]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 7:03 AM
To: 'Jean-Jacques Dubray'; Karsten Riemer - Sun IR Development;
ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: Transition question


I would expect to use the same "transition to self" pattern, I don't know
why it would be made illegal.  I suggest the rule be deleted.
Cory

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:jjdubray@exceloncorp.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 7:06 AM
To: Karsten Riemer - Sun IR Development; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Transition question


Hi:

I have a question about business transactions that may be executed several
times. The very common example is a change purchase order BT. Once an order
has been placed, there are many industries which would allow the buyer (or
the seller) to change the PO any number of time.

How do you set up the transitions to do that? My first instinct would have
been to set up a transition from and to thesame business transaction but I
came across this Wellformedness Rule:
- A transition cannot enter and exit the same state

Does that mean I cannot have a "from" and "to" which is identical (because
actually what I am tryng to model is a transition which exit and enter the
same state)?

In which case, how do you specify this essential business pattern?

JJ-


------------------------------------------------------------------
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-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org