[ebxml-dev] WSCI SUN, BEA vs IBM and .NET

[Jean-Jacques Dubray <jjd@eigner.com>]

I as explained (www.ebpml.org/wsci.htm) I would not hold my breath on
YAS (yet another spec) for web services choreography. It is embarrassing
enough that these guys have now 4 specs to deal with while ebXML has
only one.

It is clear to me that this spec is a faint attempt to regain traction
while IBM and MS are cruising the web services space.

Ultimately, the W3C does not even have the beginning of a plan to
standardize the choreography of web services ! 

Cheers,

Jean-Jacques Dubray____________________
Chief Architect
Eigner  Precision Lifecycle Management
200 Fifth Avenue
Waltham, MA 02451
781-472-6317
jjd@eigner.com
www.eigner.com 
 
 

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Frank. Christopher [mailto:C.Frank@seeburger.de]
>>Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 5:55 AM
>>To: ebxml org; ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org
>>Subject: AW: [ebxml-dev] New WSCI spec competes with BPSS.... NOT
(very
>>long)
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I am stunned. There really is a spec which competes with BPSS? How
dare
>>they?
>>
>>Reading this thread, I get the impression, that actually Ford never
>>build a new car as long as Volkswagen has not sold ALL of the cars of
>>their last new series.
>>
>>I just finished reading the thread with Jean-Jacques comments (well,
>>most of them;-) and had a look at the WSCI spec myself. I am not even
>>close that deep into the BP(M) than Jean-Jacques is. But I just
thought:
>>yepp, this (WSCI) is another SUV vehicle which has four tires (maybe 3
>>and a half) but is confusing pedals for brakes and acceleration which
>>will make driving a bit complicated. (By the way: Thanks a lot
>>Jean-Jaques for doing the analysis.)
>>
>>We, the software "producer" (and I include Sun, MS and IBM) are in
>>competition (as Ford competes with Volkswagen) with each other, and we
>>are not playing the game because of the game, but because of the
money.
>>Great, if we can overcome this and generate together something clever
>>like ebXML. But this does not necessarily mean that we do this and
only
>>this. If we cannot put ebXML to market until others (or you or me;-)
>>generate something "newer" (and "better" is unfortunately secondary),
>>ebXMl has, for whatever reason, to notice Darwins rule.
>>(And the very same does apply for WSCI.;-)
>>
>>If WSCI or any other "standard" or "trial" is overuling BPSS I would
cry
>>bitter tears (like most of the readers of this list I guess)
especially
>>if it would be overruled by something which is less good (remember
CORBA
>>and COM), because I could put all my clever thoughts and already done
>>implementation to trash, but this is the world we live in. Being the
>>best thing to solve the issue, consists of so much more influences
then
>>only the plain (cool) technology (from the deepest bottom of my heart:
>>unfortunately consist of so much more than technology).
>>
>>Best Regards
>>Christopher
>>(SEEBURGER AG, Senior Developer/Research)
>>
>>
>>(Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.";-)
>>
>>
>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>Von: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:jjd@eigner.com]
>>Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Juni 2002 07:09
>>An: andrzej@chaeron.com
>>Cc: 'Assaf Arkin'; 'Stefano POGLIANI'; 'ebxml org';
>>ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org; 'Christopher Ferris'
>>Betreff: RE: [ebxml-dev] New WSCI spec competes with BPSS.... NOT
(very
>>long)
>>
>>
>>Andrzej:
>>
>>Thank you very much for pointing this specification to us.
>>______________________________________________________________________
__
>>____
>>Summary
>>
>>After much blabla and sarcasm I analyze the WSCI spec. Aside from the
>>fact that this spec is a shameless cut and paste from BPML 0.4, as
usual
>>- and it is now a constant amongst "web services spec writers"- they
>>treat B2B as an extension of app-to-app integration (with is not the
>>same as EAI).
>>
>>The key semantic of EAI is publish/subscribe. This has been
established
>>for at least a decade with the developments of MOM and yet, the
authors
>>of WSCI try to brainwash us saying that point-to-point integration is
>>better. You should tell Ford or Boeing about that.
>>
>>No guys, Collaboration are mostly a B2B concept (see below), and
>>therefore should have B2B semantics such as non-repudiation, legally
>>binding, confidentiality, security, tamperproof,... I talk with real
>>customers every day which need these semantics. I even talked to a
>>customer today that was pleasantly surprise to hear about Core
>>Components. He told me this is exactly what he needed as their data
>>model varies a bit and ofteb with the business partners. I was stunned
!
>>These semantics would not be too hard to add to WSCI, but you guys
lack
>>the understanding of what B2B is about, it is NOT app-to-app
integration
>>over the internet. Where have you been in the last 4 years?
>>
>>Far from "killing" ebXML this specification represents the missing
link
>>that would allow us to link ebXML with business process definitions.
>>
>>I actually feel sorry that someone would like to "kill" another spec.
>>However, this is good when people use this kind of words, it brings a
>>lot of suspicion and often signals something without substance.
>>______________________________________________________________________
__
>>____
>>Disclaimer: all the thoughts expressed here only represent my opinion
>>and not the one of my company. Some of the comments are for the
purpose
>>of entertainment, given as jokes -french humor- others are an
objective
>>analysis of WSCI/BPSS for the education of the interested reader.
>>
>>I am sure that some of my comments are plain wrong, out of ignorance
or
>>sarcasm.
>>
>>I apologize in advance if my comments hurt the sensitivity of the
>>reader. It must be this hot summer night in wonderful Grotzingen
germany
>>that got me started. Ah... unless it is the mirabelle.
>>______________________________________________________________________
__
>>____
>>
>>This is always fun to see a new Specification from Intalio (since this
>>is so much based on BPML 0.4, I assume Intalio is the main driver).
>>However, it would be nice if they could finish the other specs before
>>they start new ones, BPML comes to mind. I guess they must be looking
>>for more funding yet again. We live an extraordinary time, people
write
>>a few paragraphs, add a few ppt figures (you should see BPML 0.1 to
>>understand what I am talking about), don't forget to fetch a few names
>>from industry giants, add the smell of "killing" something and boom,
>>millions of dollars fall from the sky to do more of that, without any
>>control: does it makes sense? do this guy knows what he is talking
>>about? If you succeed with the first round, you can even attempt the
>>second round -the sky is the limit- by changing a little bit your
>>paragraphs, changing the title, bandwagon the latest hottest idea on
the
>>market, an boom, jackpot again. The odds are far better than the
lotto.
>>I must be in the wrong business.
>>
>>It is also fun so to see that Intalio finally gets it. Even though I
>>have a lot of respect for people like Assaf, it would have been only
two
>>years next September that I joined BPMI and try to convince him that
>>"Collaboration" was a key artifact of the Business Process Definition
>>metamodel, namely, a Business Process is for the most part a series of
>>collaborations mediated by the Business Process Engine. This is
>>represented on figure 1-1 of the WSCI spec. I have shown that kind to
>>picture in BPMI many times, with all but contempt. In particular this
is
>>what makes the "technical binding" of the operations far easier. The
>>funny part is that BPML was designed without any alignment with B2B
>>semantics (as of v0.4) while 90% of the processes that will be defined
>>with BPML involve B2B interactions! I think that Intalio must not sell
>>many products so they have not yet integrated notions like orders,
>>invoices, customer support, negotiation, commitment, fulfillment...
They
>>probably do a lot of internal stuff at this point.
>>
>>I commented many times about the "Marketing world" in which we live so
>>let me comment now on the new ebXML "killer" on the block. As volume,
>>bass or treble is not an option to carry out your message, the only
>>thing left is "word inflation". As usual I will try to be as objective
>>as I can, Assaf is a really smart guy and more than often produces
>>excellent work: Castor, Tyrex, BPML, I guess WSCI is the exception.
>>
>>So let's start dissecting this new killer. The introduction tells us:
>>"WSCI provides an important foundation for ... application-application
>>collaboration." Ah..Ah... so they are doing this as an alternative to
>>EAI.. uhm where is B2B here? .. Ah yes they talk about it later ...
>>"These business processes may reside entirely within the confines of a
>>single company, or span across multiple organizations or companies."
Yes
>>this is a constant amongst web services people: lump sum EAI and B2B.
>>B2B is just application-to-application integration beyond the
firewall,
>>so what's the big deal about B2B? Well, you should try to convince
Ford
>>which has 2500 enterprise systems world-wide, or Boeing which has a
mere
>>84 procurement systems that it has to do application-to-application
>>integration over the internet with its tens of thousands of suppliers.
I
>>guess Intalio could not be further from the reality. I am surprised
that
>>BEA and SUN could associate their name with this kind of approach. I
>>would assume, that this is not really SUN or BEA talking just the
>>individuals eager to paste their names on this kind of sheet (not
shit).
>>However both BEA and SUN don't have much to offer in terms of web
>>services. BEA has just released a new "IDE for web services" KaKa,
Kajun
>>or something like that but to web service enable what? A few session
>>beans? SUN is in complete disarray desperately trying to catch up with
>>.NET and IBM by controlling all the possible web services
>>specifications. They lost the Java, J2EE, EAI/B2B (Forte) battles with
>>abysmal market share, to the point that they are now giving away
iPlanet
>>-free, who wants to bet that they will dominate the web services
battle?
>>No the guys that get it are the webMethods, Sybase, IONA's of the
world.
>>Their approach is based on understanding the value and positioning of
>>Web Services. In particular they are a complementary paradigm to EAI,
to
>>that effect, WebMethods provides the best approach I have seen so far
in
>>the industry, and they don't need to "kill" to sell it (see my summary
>>on www.ebpml.org/showcase.htm). Yes some of the web service spec and
>>infrastructure can be reused for B2B but you need the "business
>>semantics" that WebServices keep lacking. ebXML IS business level web
>>services, that sits on top of RPC level web services. So let's dive
into
>>this point, boy this is fun.
>>
>>First, the acute reader would have noticed that the WSCI bears a
strong
>>resemblance with BPML 0.4., the transaction model, the correlation
>>model, the choreography model are all direct copy and peste from BPML
>>0.4.
>>
>>In the overview section of the spec, here we go again:
"...interactions
>>between services - either in a business context or not" that statement
>>suggest to me that they have no Business semantics, I guess that's a
>>good way to kill ebXML but let's verify that. And they cannot
emphasize
>>this point enough (Thank you guys): "WSCI does not assume that Web
>>Services are from different companies, as in business-to-business; it
>>can be used equally well to describe interfaces of components that
>>represent internal organizational units or other applications within
the
>>enterprise." The problem is that in traditional EAI the business
>>semantics are an unnecessary burden, while no business semantics makes
>>the spec unusable in B2B scenarios. This is very layering seems to be
>>the right thing to do.
>>
>>The key semantic of EAI is publish/subscribe. This has been
established
>>for at least a decade with the developments of MOM and yet, the
authors
>>of WSCI try to brainwash us saying that key app-to-app semantics are:
>>"Most Web Services, however Participate in longer conversations,
>>spanning beyond the boundaries of a single operation. In these
>>conversations, the ability to perform certain operations depends upon
>>the previous exchange of messages as well as the way to interpret the
>>content of each message may be influenced by the previous exchange."
No
>>I am sorry, there are very few scenarios in EAI that can be supported
by
>>this kind of approach. You are back to point-to-point, wake up guys !
I
>>am actually surprised of this approach as Assaf had found a very
>>interesting concept in BPML (Consume and Produce). However, the spec
>>breaks the concept with the global model, it is no longer a pub/sub
>>semantic but rather a binding semantic. Another "detail", I did not
find
>>in the spec the notion of "transformation" though it is a key feature
of
>>EAI system an necessary for loose coupling integrating,... oh yes,
this
>>is the new an improved point-to-point integration model where all
>>application share the same semantics.
>>
>>You don't get it, do you? Collaborations are mostly a B2B thing. Yes
you
>>can model some API interaction in point-to-point manner. But, you
don't
>>publish your orders, you send them to your suppliers ! The problem
again
>>is that WSCI does not support any business semantics, not even
pub/sub.
>>Who are you going to convince to use WSCI? Can't use it for B2B, can't
>>use it for EAI.
>>
>>Let's analyze the different aspects of the spec:
>>
>>First, to be clear, all these concepts are directly repurposed from
BPML
>>0.4. Even the concept of Human Agent is coming from there. I must
admit
>>that I can't wait to see what BPML 1.0 will look like. Maybe a cut and
>>peste from WSCI?
>>
>>I like the distinction between WSDL (Static interface definition) as
>>opposed to WSCI (dynamic behavior of the static definition). This
>>approach gives you an automatic binding between the collaboration
>>definition and the technical parameters of the web service.
>>
>>"Business processes are increasingly relying upon collaboration", boy
>>why didn't I think of that before, I guess Assaf, you are finally
>>getting it. Just change increasingly by "almost exclusively" and you
are
>>there.
>>
>>"WSCI is not a "workflow description language"": strange, because all
>>the semantics are coming from BPML 0.4.
>>
>>1) Message choreography
>>"The Action, is the basic construct of WSCI, and it is bound to some
>>WSDL operation. WSCI specifies how multiple actions are choreographed
in
>>a simple sequence."
>>
>>An action is actually not a concept really different from operation
>>here, it is just a bag to add properties to an operation like
>>correlation and role performing that operation. It is not really an
>>action in the sense of event condition action, or WfMC actions, the
>>concept does not relate to "state" or "activity". Actually the best
>>proof of this is that they stop talking about Action and then talk
about
>>"WSCI describes the behavior of a Web service in terms of
choreographed
>>activities." and "The most common atomic activity is action." This is
a
>>poor choice of word as activity and action have precise semantics in
>>this context. Also, I sense a design flaw here, do you support the
>>concept of using an action definition more than once within the
>>choreography (not part of a loop). BPSS supports the notion of a usage
>>of a business transaction(~action), this is called
>>BusinessTransactionActivity which means that the same BT definition
can
>>be reused any number of time. This is a must, this is a very useful
>>concept. I don't think you have the same thing. Do you?
>>
>>We can see directly from the example that WSCI is "asymmetric" in
other
>>words, it is designed from the perspective of one side of the
>>collaboration. So that works well here because the user manages the
>>collaboration in his head. In a real scenario you need to map the
>>actions of one side to the one of the other.  Microsoft has struggled
a
>>lot with this asymmetry in XLang, WSFL came out with a more elegant
>>approach and the concept of global model. I actually can't believe my
>>eyes, after BPML being a plagiary of XLang (though better), they now
>>shamelessly "borrow" from WSFL, with the same concept of Global
models.
>>These guys are the champion of cut and peste. As usual, they don't
>>reference their sources. Your reference list is hilarious. W3C that,
W3C
>>this. How impressive, you guys must be smart to read all these
>>specifications. See, the worst thing that the web has brought to us is
>>un-refereed publications. Anybody can publish anything and get away
with
>>it!
>>
>>In comparison, ebXML is designed in a totally symmetric manner, such
>>that the business service interfaces of each partner can be configured
>>from the same collaboration definition. I think that this is a
>>fundamental flaw of the web services concept when use in collaborative
>>applications (not in Stock quotes), because you deal with twice as
much
>>xml, plus you need to glue the pieces together. With that respect
ebXML
>>BPSS is far more elegant and efficient.
>>
>>The control flow is a "block-structured" control flow and is specified
>>with the semantics:
>>Complex processes
>>Sequential execution
>>Parallel execution
>>Looping
>>Conditional execution
>>
>>I guess you would have guess by now ... guys this is sick, this is a
>>shameless cut and peste of BPML 0.4. Unfortunately, I think that block
>>structured control flow is not the most appropriate choreography model
>>here. You have definitely negotiation pattern that would be hard to
>>model with a block structured approach.
>>
>>Also could you explain me something? Just like ebXML you specify the
>>choreography of a collaboration, why is it within a <process> element?
>>Would <collaboration> be more appropriate. It can't be that you read
>>BPSS too many times, since you have no idea about BPSS semantics.
>>
>>
>>2) Transaction boundaries and compensation
>>In BPSS, we did not find the notion of Roll-back appropriate. So yes
>>WSCI describes also compensating transaction, which is more the way a
>>business operates (roll-back is more app-to-app kind of thing). BPSS
>>does not have that, but we did not find it a hurdle to model real
world
>>collaboration, as they can be modeled anyways, the only difference is
>>that these business transactions are not tagged as compensating
>>transactions.
>>
>>3) Exception handling
>>The exception behavior is yet a copy/peste from BPML. ebXML BPSS is
able
>>to identity exceptions (technical or business) but let the designer of
>>the collaboration specify the course of action. It looks more
>>appropriate to use the WSCI approach (as a java programmer), however,
>>from a practical perspective, I don't think you gain much there. There
>>is a key semantic that is missing in WSCI, which I think cannot be
>>added: BPSS:acceptanceAcknowledgement which signals that a message was
>>correctly processed by the receiving application. In B2B this is
>>essential to synchronize the state of two companies. In our world,
PLM,
>>people exchange large CAD files (we have customer which ships a whole
>>car !). As part of the exchange, you really want to know not only that
>>your message got there (Via a web service), but that it correctly
loaded
>>in the receiving application whether it is a CAD system, or even if it
>>is reviewed by a user !!
>>
>>4) Thread management
>>WSCI (like BPML) also uses the concept of "correlation" to identify
the
>>collaboration instance of a given message. I personally dislike this
>>approach and rather carry a cookie around to maintain context. I think
>>this is more a matter or preference. I feel that the cookie is cleaner
>>and more general. You don't get stock if the correlation is ambiguous
or
>>need to span several elements of a document. The major advantage of
WSCI
>>approach is in multiparty collaboration as show in their example. But
I
>>don't think they fully solve the multiparty collaboration problem just
>>yet. BPSS does not either.
>>
>>5) Properties and Selectors
>>The property concept is good, as it decouples the choreography
>>specification from the document formats of the message exchange. BPSS
>>should use that concept.
>>
>>6) Connectors
>>Did not find much about this
>>7) Operational context
>>Did not find much about this
>>8) Dynamic participation
>>Did not find much about this
>>
>>So in conclusion, I think they fall short of understanding the B2B
>>semantics that ebXML implements. I cannot find a customer that told
me,
>>no "I don't need the business semantics provided by ebXML (BPSS in
>>particular), I can live with XLang or WSFL, and now the new and
>>turbo-charged WSCI". (Va-va-voom)
>>
>>However, you do provide the missing piece for linking ebXML to
Business
>>Process Management Systems, which I was trying to introduce when I was
>>working at BPMI. As I explained in chapter 6 of the book, Professional
>>ebXML foundation, you need to wrap the ebXML business service
interface
>>into web services in order to let your enterprise systems use the
>>B2b/Ebxml infrastructure. WSCi represent the missing link which allow
me
>>to strip the business semantics (once you are within your four walls,
>>you don't need it anymore) and enable a business process management
>>system to take over and control the b2b collaboration message exchange
>>with the appropriate interactions of your enterprise systems.
>>
>>Good work, could do better though. So how long did it take you to
write
>>it? A couple weeks? Maybe a week for the art work? Congratulations on
>>the coloring scheme, I am sure the VCs will be impressed.
>>
>>Cheers !
>>
>>
>>Jean-Jacques Dubray____________________
>>Chief Architect
>>Eigner  Precision Lifecycle Management
>>200 Fifth Avenue
>>Waltham, MA 02451
>>781-472-6317
>>jjd@eigner.com
>>www.eigner.com
>>
>>
>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Andrzej Jan Taramina [mailto:andrzej@chaeron.com]
>>>>Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 11:18 AM
>>>>To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
>>>>Subject: [ebxml-dev] New WSCI spec competes with BPSS....
>>>>
>>>>The new Web Service Choreography Interface spec has been developed
and
>>>>released by a consortium including Sun, BEA, Intalio, and SAP.
>>>>
>>>>The spec can be found here:
>>>>
>>>>	http://titan.intalio.com:8080/intalio/wsci/
>>>>
>>>>According to a contact at Intalio (prime movers behind BPMI), and I
>>quote:
>>>>
>>>>> Think of wsci as an ebxml killer and the public interface to any
>>>>process,
>>>>> making it reusable and exposing it where needed since that process
>>is a
>>>>> private implementation (BPML)
>>>>
>>>>Basically, it looks like WSCI is intended to supplant BPSS.  This is
a
>>bit
>>>>strange,
>>>>given Sun's participation and support of ebXML initiatives.  WSCI
>>would be
>>>>used to
>>>>specify public processes, whereas BPML would be used to specify
>>private
>>>>(internal)
>>>>processes.
>>>>
>>>>It distresses me that the whole world of XML-dialect standards seems
>>to be
>>>>splintering as soon as you try to get anywhere beyond the basic
specs
>>>>(XML, SOAP,
>>>>WSDL, UDDI) that the vendors have all agreed to.  Seems that vendors
>>are
>>>>still
>>>>playing their usual games vying for proprietary lock-in higher up in
>>the
>>>>protocol
>>>>stacks.
>>>>
>>>>It behooves the users/customers to loudly complain and demand
>>standards-
>>>>based,
>>>>interoperable solutions.  We've had a taste of the benefits that
such
>>an
>>>>approach
>>>>brings to the table....let's keep pounding the vendors till they
>>deliver
>>>>on such
>>>>promises higher in the stack as well.  This also leads me to believe
>>that
>>>>there might
>>>>be market share gain opportunities available to software vendors
that
>>take
>>>>the high
>>>>road of global standards compliance (New Era/Sybase come to mind
>>here).
>>>>
>>>>I'ld be interested in hearing from Sun people that hang on this list
>>as to
>>>>what their
>>>>intent is regarding ebXML standards (like BPSS) versus this new WSCI
>>>>proposal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>...Andrzej
>>>>
>>>>Chaeron Corporation
>>>>http://www.chaeron.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>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>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>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>