ebxml-tp message

OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

Subject: RE: Comments of CPP

I have an alternative proposal for discussion on this topic.

My idea would be :
	1.	to have the <ROLE> as a subtag or attribute for the
		<CollaborationProtocol> tag
	2.	The <ServiceBinding> tag at line 506 (the one within
		the <ROLE> should disappear
	3.	The <ServiceBinding> Tag at line 608 (the one within
		the <DeliveryChannel>) would need to reference the
		above mentioned <CollaborationProtocol>

This was, the <CollaborationProtocol> which is referenced from within the
CPA is "qualified" by the ROLE the Party would play in such a BP.
(Obviously, if a Party plays more than one role, multiple
<CollaborationProtocol> tags with different ROLE will be required).

IMHO, keeping the ROLE with the <CollaborationProtocol> instead than
with the <DeliveryChannel> would be cleaner for the following reasons:

	1.	The <CollaborationProtocol> would immediately mean "the role
		played by a Party in a given BP". The meaning of such a tag
		would be more "compact"

	2.	I think that, in the context of the CPP, the CollaborationProtocol
		would not need to reference the BP in an abstract way. In the
		context of the CPP, the BP would always need to be qualified
		by the role that such Party would be able to play.

	3.	The DeliveryChannel would be a composition of "the role played
		by a party in a BP" together with the technical infrastructure.

		If the Role would be within the DeliveryChannel, the DeliveryChannel
		itself would be the composition of 3 entities (the BP, the Role
		played by the Party in such BP and the technical infrastructure).

	4.	In view of the "CPA template" idea, I imagine that this could
		be more clear.

Of course, these justifications may be very subjective.

Best regards


 -----Original Message-----
 From: duane [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com]
 Sent: 19 January 2001 02:48
 To: Martin W Sachs
 Cc: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
 Subject: Re: Comments of CPP

 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
 >    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

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC