Re: Comments of CPP

[duane <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

Martin W Sachs wrote:
> 
> Duane,

> However in writing the above, the following came to mind which may be what
> you are concerned with:
> If a CPP has links to multiple collaboration protocol documents, then there
> might be a collision of role names between collaboration protocol
> documents.  
>>>>

Yes - this is what I was referring to - instances where parties use
multiple CollaborationProtocols.

The answer, I think is the following:
> 
>    The delivery channel already provides for one or more service bindings.
>    Each points to a different collaboration protocol document.
> 
>    My proposal was to move the roles into the delivery channels.  To solve
>    your problem, the role name (just one) would be under each service
>    binding tag or maybe would be an attribute of the tag.
>>>>
THis seems like a good solution.  
 
>    The above should resolve the naming clashes.  Since the role name is
>    significant to only one service binding tag, which points to only one
>    collaboration protocol document, a clash of role names is of no
>    significance.  Party X can play role name "A" in one collaboration
>    protocol and can play the same role name "A", which has very different
>    function, in a different collaboration protocol and there is no
>    confusion.  This is exactly the same idea as my original suggestion in
>    which party X plays role "A" in one instance of the collaboration
>    protocol and plays role "B" (the other role) in the second instance of
>    the same collaboration protocol.  In most cases, these issues relate
>    only to the CPP since I expect that in general, a CPA will contain only
>    one collaboration protocol.
> 
> Comments, anyone else?
> 
> Regards,
> Marty
> 
> 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
> *************************************************************************************
> 
> Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com> on 01/18/2001 06:54:03 PM
> 
> To:   ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
> cc:
> Subject:  Comments of CPP
> 
> Hello Marty/all:
> 
> In the CPP example,  near the bottom of the XML Document,  there is an
> element <CollaborationProtocol> that encapsulates each business process
> supported by the party ID'ed at the top of the CPP document.  Each
> Business Process can have one, two or more roles defined.  In some cases
> the roles may be identified by words such as "Buyer" and "Seller" (as
> per the example).  Other more generic terms may be used as well such as
> "Submitter" or "Receiver".
> 
> The <Roles> element near the top of the document defines a Party's
> ability to fulfill a certain role within a business process.
> 
> Becuase Business Process's can be adopted from multiple sources (who
> each define their own semantics and Roles) I see a possible collision of
> names used to describe roles within different business processes.
> 
> Is it possible to keep the existing <CollaborationProtocol> structure
> near the end of the CPP document however,  place an element within it to
> allow the party to state which roles it supports.  The element would
> have to be able to occur one or more times.
> 
> eg>
> 
> <CollaborationProtocol version = "1.0"
>                        id = "N07"
>                        xlink:type = "locator"
> xlink:href="http://www.foo.com/purchasing.xml">
>                        Buy and Sell
>   <!-- This role would be explicitly called out in the actual Business
> Process XML document-->
>   <Role>Buyer</Role>
>   <Role>Seller</Role><!--can receive the PO as well as send them out-->
> </CollaborationProtocol>
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Duane Nickull