RE: eBTWG Proposal BPSS Revision Project 0.3 DRAFT

[LONJON Antoine <alonjon@mega.com>]

Bob, Marteen 

I really support a task work for a fast release BPSS 1.1
As many others, we've already been working on project putting BPSS at work.
We've found some small but annoying leaks in the specification that need to
solved.
I have already sent a document about both notation and precise computation
rules for business transaction.

Concerning other languages, I also want to point how much XML is changing
the game as far modeling is concerned.
Not only XML is bringing easy structured data management but it is also
bringing easy metadata design and management to the development community.
Several years ago, one could have thought that OMG or other related
organization could have become the recognized owner of metadata definitions.
This is no more the case. Anybody can easily create it's own schema and
validate real instances against it. 
This does not mean that there is not a need for a common agreement on
metadata. 
But I have difficulties to see UMM as THE metamodel being the pivot and
neutral expression for collaboration language. UMM is too much grounded on
UML with a lot of extension that makes it difficult to map to a simple XML
Collaboration language (This is not just a statement; I have done it). 
The folks working on executable collaboration languages start from XML
Metadata. They do not need UML. They simply ignore it (Look at XLANG, BPML,
WSDL,WSFL, ....).
Whatever opinion people may have about my thought on UMM, they can't ignore
that the XML world has its own way to metadata.

Antoine,


-----Original Message-----
From: bhaugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 9:31 AM
To: LONJON Antoine; 'Maarten Steen'; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: eBTWG Proposal BPSS Revision Project 0.3 DRAFT


From: LONJON Antoine
> 3. There are outside ebXML a number of other XML specifications for
> communication over the internet, especially the webService camp. Nobody
can
> ignore that the major vendors are investing in that direction. WSFL from
IBM
> is really a sign of that evolution (WSFL sits on top of webService
> definition to define ....... choreography of services .....)
> Without a focus the points (4, 5, and 6) highlighted by Marteen, the BPSS
> project could become isolated from the implementation world without the
> knowledge of people that can grant real executability and .... market
> adoption.

Antoine and all,

The Collaboration Patterns project intends to try to map
its results to more than one of the various contenders for
choreography languages.  (As software design patterns
are independent of programming language, collaboration
patterns can be independent of choreography language.)

Maybe you can help us when we get into mapping;
I suspect you've done a lot of that.

As far as I know, all of the alternative BPSS projects
intend to look at other choreography languages, too.
The only problem I see with that is that everybody
seems to agree that we need for a relatively fast
BPSS 1.1 to fix the known issues, some of which
you have raised, and I don't think it would be good
to get distracted by other approaches until the current
BPSS is consolidated.

-Bob Haugen



----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>