Dear Tony, when I read Davids question, I didn't realize it was an example from the spec. I made the activity diagram on paper, but if it is of any value to you, I could draw it in visio (I usually take Bindstudio, but my colleague took the laptop that has bindstudio installed). When I started my research on ebXML (and bpss in particular), I found out that the large example in appendix A also has some errors, meanly concerning ID's (some ID's are defined twice). I haven't tried it, but I think this example doesn't even parse with the bpss schema. If you like the diagram in Visio, plz let me know. Best regards, Dennis. Tony Fletcher wrote: > Dear Dennis and others, > > If you, or anyone else, has drawn an activity diagram - or any other sort of > diagram, that applies to \the example in the BPSS 1.05 specification > document could you please forward it to me (and / or this list). One of the > outstanding comments on BPSS 1.05 that has been agreed to be included in the > next revision is to give diagram(s) and a description of the process used in > the example. So any such descriptions and diagrams will be very gratefully > received by those working on BPSS. > > Thank you. > > Best Regards Tony > A M Fletcher > > Cohesions (TM) > > Business transaction management software for application coordination > www.choreology.com > > Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX UK > Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7670 1785 Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 > 948219 > tony.fletcher@choreology.com (Home: amfletcher@iee.org) > > -----Original Message----- > From: D Krukkert [mailto:krukkert@fel.tno.nl] > Sent: 16 July 2003 08:27 > To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org > Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] Help needed. BPSS 1.05 Choreography > > David, > > I agree with Duane (and Monica ofcourse) that there still are some issues > unresolved in the BPSS. But I don't think these issues are relevant here. > Currently I'm doing research on automated matching of business processes in > ebXML, and most of the issues are concerning multiparty collaborations. The > only issue that might be relevant for you is the use of conditions on > transitions. Since preconditions, postconditions and guards on transitions > are specified using normal text (instead of e.g. OCL), there is no way to > check correctness in an automated way. > > Back to you problem: > > I made an UML activity diagram of your binary collaboration, and I noticed > the following things: > > - Usually, not every BusinessTransactionActivity has a transition to an end > state "success". Only those activities that would lead to success in a > "real-world environment" should have such a transition. In your case, this > would probably only be "process repair order" (I assume that "success" means > a correct repair order, and that "update repair order" is used to correct > flaws in a repair order). > > - The BusinessTransactionActivity "UpdateRepairOrder" has two outgoing > transitions guarded "success", this is illegal! Guard on outgoing > transitions from one BTA should ALWAYS exclude each other (just like in > state machines), or else your introducing non-determinism (believe me, we > don't want that, it's complex enough already :-) > > - There is no transition from ProcessRepairOrder to UpdateRepairOrder, this > means the transaction will never be able to get in the state > "UpdateRepairOrder". You should add this transition and guard it something > like "[business failure]" > > Hope this helps a little. Feel free to contact me any time (accept for next > week and the week after: vacation) > > anyone interested in process matching could read the article me and my > colleague wrote on openXchange and ebXML (second half is on process > matching): > > http://www.tno.nl/instit/fel/ts/prj/openxchange/nl/paperXMLEuropeFolmer-Kr uk > kert.html > > Best regards, > Dennis.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>