[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: Example RN PIP 3A4 in BPSS
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC