RE: [BP] specification relationship issues 2

[Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com>]

Cory,
I am copying this to the listers in spirit of open discussion.

I see 'AuthorizingRole' in the UML but I can't find 'authorizingRole' in
the 91 dtd.
Firstly do you believe that a <binary-collaboration> should only exist
under a <package>?

Seperate issue:
091.xml: I assume both the <transistion>'s 'from' attribute and the
<start>'s 'to' attribute both refer to
a <business-transaction-activity>'s 'name' attribute within the same
<binary-collaboration>. If so,
I suggest changing the slightly misleading dtd comment:
"         <!-- the "OrderCollaboration" specifies that it will start with
an "OrderBT"
                business transaction from the buy role.  If the order is
confirmed it will... "
to:
"         <!-- the "OrderCollaboration" specifies that it will start with
an "OrderBT"
                business-transaction-activity which indicates from the buy
role.  If the order is confirmed it will..."

This leads to a question, on:
If a <binary-collaboration> specifies an 'initiator' and 'responder' via
attributes, what exactly does this
mean if its contained <business-transaction-activity>s can define the
direction via 'from' and 'to'? Is
the intention that the first <business-transaction-activity> must have the
initiator value specified within
it's from attribute?

Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



Cory Casanave <cory-c@dataaccess.com> on 01/04/2001 10:32:01 AM

To:   Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc:
Subject:  RE: [BP] specification relationship issues 2



Scott,
I don't know how to say this in DTD without imposing strict ordering
constraints on the model elements (which I don't think we want).  We can
change the cardinality in the model (from authorizingRole to Requesting
Activity) to 1..n.  The start state may have to be a documentation
constraint.
Cory

> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Scott Hinkelman [SMTP:srh@us.ibm.com]
> Sent:   Wednesday, January 03, 2001 4:37 PM
> To:     ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject:     [BP] specification relationship issues 2
>
> The following validates under 090 dtd.
> -> We should insist that a binary-collaboration contains at least 1
> business-transaction-activity,
> and at least 1 start.
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <!DOCTYPE EbXmlProcessSpecification SYSTEM
> "file://localhost/C:/ebXML/BP/ebXmlSpecificationDTD090.dtd" >
> <EbXmlProcessSpecification>
>   <package name="mypackage"/>
>   <package name="mysecondpackage"/>
>   <business-transaction name="mybusinesstransaction">
>     <request type="myrequesttype"/>
>   </business-transaction>
>   <binary-collaboration initiator="theinitiator" name="thename" responder
> ="theresponder"/>
> </EbXmlProcessSpecification>
>
> Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
> XML Industry Enablement
> IBM e-business Standards Strategy
> 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
> srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074