RE: [ebxml-dev] BPMI?

[Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>]

JJ,
	thanks for the reply. 
Only a couple of comments:
> 
> [JJ] Actually, mapping is a responsibility that fits well BPMS as a
> broker of very disparate entities, so I would not necessarily put that
> in the BSI unless it is a preliminary mapping (e.g. Flat file attachment
> to some XML).

	<stefano>
	The BSI should be able to transfer the "message" to the
	right entry-point of the application which is in charge
	of processing it. 
	In my view, the BSI manages the BPSS choreography; this is
	different than managing the internal process; so, it may
	well be that the BSI will "route" the message to a BPMS,
	but this is no different than routing to an application.

	A different case would be the one of a BPMS which is "aware"
	of ebXML and which, in that sense, may itself play the
	role of a BSI (in addition of the role of the internal BPMS).
	</stefano>
> 
> >>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.
> 
> [JJ] yes, this is definitely a responsibility of the BSI though it is
> hard to implement in practice. 

	<stefano>
	The difficulty I see is establishing a "standard" way for
	doing this monitoring/managing activity. 
	</stefano>
> 
> >>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.
> 
> [JJ] The problem is that the semantics and protocol of a business
> transaction does not land well in the web service concept. For instance,
> in BPSS you send a request and waiting for a response. In the mean time,
> two acceptance signals can flow back before you actually receive the
> response. This is done for good reason: non repudiation, guaranteed
> message delivery (at the business level). Also a response in BPSS is one
> of many possible formats. Lastly, a business transaction has a series of
> possible exceptions which must be handled at the process or enterprise
> system level (clean up). For all these reasons, I think that a business
> transaction should be a first class citizen in the BPML metamodel, just
> like web services are.

	<stefano>
	Not sure we are saying different things.
	My point is that once a "system" is built using the ebXML specs
	(roughly, the CPA which implies BPSS and MSH), it can be described
	as a Web Service. 
	</stefano>

Best regards
/stefano