[ebxml-dev] A Proposal for multi-party collaboration choreography,and an articulation between ebXML and web services

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

Hi:

I have spent more time looking at WSCI, and specially focused on the
example (see figure 5-3) of the spec. It is pretty clear to me that the
combination of interface and global model definitions can be used to
describe a collaboration between components or applications within or
outside the enterprise.

I certainly find it cumbersome and risky to use the WSCI approach where
the interfaces can be designed independently of each other, therefore
making it difficult to be guaranteed that they are really compatible
with each other from a dynamic behavior perspective.

So what I have done is put on paper some ideas I had for quite some
time. For good reason, multi-party collaboration was introduced as a
synthesis of binary collaboration since trading agreement can and should
only/mostly be done between two parties. However, from a choreography
perspective that is not the best way to describe choreography between
various parties. 

I have taken a different approach which was the repurpose the
choreography specification of a binary collaboration into a multiparty
collaboration. This was needed to establish the articulation between
ebXML and web services as I think we should expect that a relationship
should either be ebXML or web services but not both (in the context of
the same collaboration). It would be odd otherwise to have a mixed
collaboration. So a typical example would need to involve at least 3
parties.

The important thing is that I have done only two minor modifications to
the BPSS spec to do that (no need to create a new spec for it!). We will
need some modification of the CPP/A spec if people want to go in this
direction. 

I think that the Agent-N-Airline example of WSCI and WSFL can be well
represented with this new paradigm because it does not take any point of
view. It simply provides a way to express the flow of message between
any number of partners. From this perspective, interfaces can be
calculated automatically. 

I am preparing a follow up paper which uses the same approach
(multi-party collaboration) to express both executable and enterprise
business processes. One of the advantage is that the concept of B2B
collaboration is bolted into this new Business Process Definition
metamodel unlike previous ones. I plan to have this paper out by Friday.

As usual, comments, feedback, are more than appreciated.

The paper can be found at www.ebpml.org/ebpml.doc
More analysis on the WSCI example can be found at
www.ebpml.org/wsci.htm#Looking

If we the WSCI authors want to make their complete XML definition
available, I will detail the complete choreography expressed as ebXML
BPSS.

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: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:Jean-Jacques.Dubray@eigner.com]
>>Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 3:28 PM
>>To: 'ebxml org'; ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org
>>Subject: [ebxml-dev] WSCI analysis revised and Augmented
>>
>>After talking with a couple authors of the WSCI spec I felt if was not
>>fair play to leave my sarcasms and frustration in the spec analysis.
So
>>they are gone. I think in the future if would be nice if communication
>>is done in a timely manner specially when there is overlap in the
>>authorship of the specification and when rumors are floating around. I
>>cannot emphasize enough the value of the open process by which ebXML
is
>>designed. Everybody knows what is going on, can bring some comments,
>>point out deficiencies. When intermediary specifications are developed
>>like WSCL, WSFL or WSCI, a lot of energy is wasted. Of course when
specs
>>are larger, with more participants and based on and RFP like at the
OMG,
>>I value this kind of process as well.
>>
>>I have added my views of the complementarities between WSCI and BPSS
>>www.ebpml.org/wsci.htm#bpss
>>
>>Over the week-end I will review the complete example in more detail
and
>>deliver a final analysis.
>>
>>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: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:Jean-Jacques.Dubray@eigner.com]
>>>>Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 6:27 AM
>>>>To: 'Frank. Christopher'; 'ebxml org'; ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org
>>>>Subject: [ebxml-dev] WSCI SUN, BEA vs IBM and .NET
>>>>
>>>>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>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>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>