[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: Collaboration Services (was: Business Service Interface)
Nothing really got resolved at the F2F except the technical content of the team requirements document. I believe that the consensus of the group that was present was to start with the tpaML sequencing rules and later add a more general orchestration representation, perhaps an ECA state machine representation. There is a timing question - what can we hope to complete for a May deliverable? The actual experience of the IBM Research team is with OBI and RosettaNet, for which the tpaML sequencing rules appear to be sufficient. At the time we wanted to firm up a specification, we were having a lot of inconclusive arguments about more general orchestration and we didn't have a good use case for it at the time, so we went ahead with what you see. We understand that something more general is needed and will be working with the BP team on this. Regards, Marty ************************************************************************************* Martin W. Sachs IBM T. J. Watson Research Center P. O. B. 704 Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com ************************************************************************************* Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com> on 10/23/2000 08:22:13 AM To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS cc: "ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org" <ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org>, "'ebXML-BP@llists.ebxml.org'" <ebXML-BP@lists.ebxml.org> Subject: RE: Collaboration Services (was: Business Service Interface) <Martin Sachs> The IBM tpaML proposal includes sequencing rules which specify the required order in which each party can issue messages to the other party. This appears to cover a large number of the practical cases. The run-time middleware can verify whether the sequencing rules are being obeyed. At the TP team Face to Face earlier this month, we spoke about developing a more general model such as a event-condition-action state machine for the cases where the tpaML sequencing rules are not sufficient. </Martin Sachs> Marty, at the F2F meeting, did the differences between the sequencing approaches of TP and the BP metamodel get resolved? Also, got any examples of what you are thinking of for the "large number of practical cases"? I'm not being skeptical, just trying to get a handle on what business scenarios people have in mind for sequencing rules. I assume you've seen some of the ones I posted recently in this thread. If you listed some previously and I missed them, let me know and I'll go to the archives. Regards, Bob Haugen
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC