[Fwd: Re: Is BP Specification Schema mandatory?]

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@tedis.com.au>]

from chris ferris.

we can discuss this on friday


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Is BP Specification Schema mandatory?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 22:23:13 -0400
From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Organization: XTC Advanced Development
To: tmcgrath@tedis.com.au
CC: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
References: <OF3A9A5F0B.E9504C52-ON85256A32.0011106E@pok.ibm.com>
<3ADE48B6.994B748E@tedis.com.au>

Tim,

Please forward to ebxml-coord as I'm not subscribed.

There is no restriction per se. A ProcessSpecification can point to
anything at all. It can even "point to" nothing at all as would
be the case where a URI/URN is used to identify an abstraction
that two or more Parties understand through some means other
than via a UML, XML or other document. 

Our specification has only dealt explicitly with the use
case in which the document referenced by the xlink:href attribute
of the ProcessSpecification element is an ebXML BPSS instance
document that describes a specific business process.

Are you asking us to explicitly state/specify how the CPP/CPA
might be used with a busines process specification that is NOT
conformant
with the BPSS?

Would the following be more acceptable:

line 554 
"The ProcessSpecification element provides the reference to a process
specification
that defines the interactions between the two Parties.  It is
RECOMMENDED that this reference be a document that is prepared in accord
with the ebXML 
Business Process Specification Schema specification[BPMSPEC]. However,
it MAY reference
anything that the two Parties mutually recognize and understand. This
specification only concerns itself with a formal description of the 
use case that the document referenced is prepared in accord with the
ebXML Business Process Specification Schema specification[BPMSPEC]."

Cheers,

Chris
Tim McGrath wrote:
> 
> an issue has arisen in the Quality Reveiw of the Business Porcess Specification Schema.
> Their document states:
> 
> "The CPA/CPP Specification requires that parties agree upon a Collaboration Protocol
> Agreement (CPA) in order to transact business. A CPA associates itself with a specific
> Binary Collaboration. Thus, all Business Transactions performed between two parties must
> be referenced through Business Transaction Activities contained within a Binary
> Collaboration. " (Business Process Specification Schema v0.99, lines 734-739)
> 
> we queried this condition with the BP team and now accept that this is in line with the
> current CPP/CPA spec, that states:
> 
> line 496 "The CollaborationRole element SHALL consist of the following child elements: a
> REQUIRED ProcessSpecification element, ..."
> 
> and subsequently...
> 
> line 554 "The ProcessSpecification element provides the link to the Process-Specification
> document that defines the interactions between the two Parties.  This document is
> prepared in accord with the ebXML Business Process Specification Schema
> specification[BPMSPEC]."
> 
> our concern is that this would prevent organisations not using business process models
> (in ebXML BPSS form) from using ebXML CPAs.  we cannot see why this restriction is
> necessary.
> 
> can you clarify the intention?
> 
> --
> regards
> tim mcgrath
> TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
> phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-tp-request@lists.ebxml.org