Re: [ebxml-dev] BPMI?

[Chaemee Kim <cmkim@ktnet.com>]

Dear BPMI discussion participants,

Could you correct me if I'm wrong?
The most confusing thing is to separate the role of BPMS & BSI & MSH.

(1) Why do we need two standard for BPMS?
In my understanding, ebXML BPSS lacks of internal private process management.
Therefore we need BPML in order to establish & describe both of private & public process.
BPMS runs on BPML, so we need to bind BPSS into BPML to run your process.

Does this mean BPML lacks of describing public process management?

(2) What is the best approach to establish BPMS?
BPML with BPSS ?

(3) Why did you say thet BPML is web service oriented?

(4) What's the main role of BSI and MSH(Messaging Service Handler)?
BPMS have to understand BPSS & BPML.
BSI have to understand CPA.
BSI have to manage the message in the level of Business Transaction, not Collaboration.
Business Transaction means one transaction of requesting and responding activity.
In MSH, it have to manage the message in the level of Business Service.
Business Service means the unit of sending message & receiving signal for ack or exception.

Good Luck!
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stefano POGLIANI" <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>
To: "bhaugen" <linkage@interaccess.com>; "Jean-Jacques Dubray" <jjd@eigner.com>; <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 10:36 AM
Subject: RE: [ebxml-dev] BPMI?


> I have lost some of the latest developments on BPML, so what I
> am going to say may be "technically" not completely up-to-date.
> Nevertheless I hope that the "meaning" will not suffer.
> 
> 1. From a BSI perspective I may have explained myself in a
> wrong way; in my mind the BSI should enforce whichever
> semantic is described by a CPA; so, if the semantic is
> the one of collaborations built using transactions, this
> is what should be done.
> 
> 2. The BSI should, whenever possible, be directly derivable
> from the CPA.
> As far as I understand the problem, the only information
> required to make the BSI fully automated is the mapping
> of the "messages" to some internal action.
> Not always it is "possible" to map a message to the
> execution of some legacy in an automated fashion. But the
> BSI software could, in those case, function possibly as
> a mailbox.
> 
> 3. It is important, in order to have a BSI, to describe
> a protocol for accountability of the shared process.
> What I mean is that having the BSI on both sides, it
> will be important that each partner may be able to
> ask to the other about the status of what it is doing.
> 
> 4. I am not sure I understand the initial distinction JJ
> made about BPML going in the w/s direction and loosing
> the B2B bus.
> I may be certainly wrong, but I think that the BSI will
> be, in itself, a Web Service.
> - is accessable via SOAP (w/A)
> - is discoverable via UDDI (and RegRep)
> - is describable via the CPP/CPA...
>   and I think that it could "reflect" some WSDL
> 
> What changes between the ebXML as we see today and the
> w/s as we see today, is the "process". In ebXML the BSI
> executes a shared process; this requirement is not yet
> formalized (maybe it will never be or it will...) for
> w/s.
> 
> The work that JJ and Antoine did in BPML was to show
> how to "link" the BPSS with the BPML.
> 
> JJ, could you pls better explain which is the hole
> you see?
> 
> 5. I like the separation JJ makes in BPSS between the
> protocol-related things and the process-related
> things.
> But, in my understanding, these two views are not
> separated and live well together. I think that the
> fact that BPSS specifies protocol-related things is
> not to be removed but, actualy, could help in
> better configuring the underlying system.
> 
> What am I missing ?
> 
> Best regards
> 
> /stefano
> 
> 
> 
> » -----Original Message-----
> » From: bhaugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
> » Sent: 22 February 2002 20:54
> » To: Jean-Jacques Dubray; ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
> » Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] BPMI?
> »
> »
> » From: Jean-Jacques Dubray
> »
> » >BPSS contains two things: a) a protocol which sits on top of the MS
> » >protocol and b) a collaboration specification based on the concept of
> » >choreographed business transactions. The protocol is inside the
> » business
> » >transaction.
> »
> » If your point in the preceding paragraph was to differentiate
> » between business transaction and business collaboration layers,
> » I agree.  But then I get confused...
> »
> » >A BPMS should not deal with protocol level semantics, in other words it
> » >is not here to enforce/implement the protocol. This is actually the
> » role
> » >of the BSI layer as proposed in the BPSS spec and well documented by
> » >Stephano Pogliani.
> »
> » 1. What does "BPMS" mean?  Business Process Management System?
> » Does it live on top of the transaction layer?
> » 2. Last time I talked to Stephano, he was not making a distinction
> » between transaction and collaboration layers - and his BSI document
> » also contained mappings to internal business apps.
> » 3. The latest BPSS is ambiguous:
> » "It is anticipated that over time BSI software will evolve to the point
> » of monitoring and managing the state of a collaboration, similar to the
> » way a BSI today is expected to manage the state of a transaction. For
> » the immediate future, such capabilities are not expected and not
> » required."
> »
> » >However, if you get rid of the protocol you still have a flow of
> » >information (request/response and exceptions generated by the BSI based
> » >on the analysis of the protocol).
> »
> » Do I understand correctly that you do *not* mean literally
> » to "get rid of" the transaction protocol, but only to delegate
> » it to a different software component?
> »
> » >What I propose is that BPML support at the metamodel level the concepts
> » >of business transactions and collaboration. Isn't a business process a
> » >series of coordinated collaborations (with partners, with enterprise
> » >systems, and with users) ?
> »
> » Makes sense to me...
> »
> » >Don't get me wrong, I would like to see BPML to succeed, I am just
> » >trying to point at the past and show that BPML suffers the same lack of
> » >vision that a WfMC or OMG has had (I need to catch up on UML 2.0 to see
> » >where the OMG is going). It is actually amazing to me that each group
> » >(WfMC, BPMI, EDOC, OMG MS, IBM...) consciously omits one or more side
> » of
> » >the problem. BPML acts just as if B2B did not exist. Aren't 90% of
> » >enterprise processes driven by some kind of customer, supplier or
> » >channel partner interaction?
> »
> » Exactly.  But then some people complain (justifiably) that
> » ebXML ignores internal business systems...
> »
> » -Bob Haugen
> »
> »
> »
> »
> » ----------------------------------------------------------------
> » The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
> » To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> » manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
> »
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>