RE: initial draft of CPP-CPA Specification

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Stefano,

My replies embedded below.

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
*************************************************************************************



Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com> on 01/22/2001 10:38:32 AM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org, ebxml-ta-security@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  RE: initial draft of CPP-CPA Specification



Marty,

»
»
»      Do you mean new applications that will be developed as already
"ebXML
» compliant" ?
»
» MWS: I meant that new applications can be aware of the collaboration and
» the CPA without needing a special bridge.
»

     So, I think we are saying the same thing. ebXML-compliant applications
     would be aware of the collaboration and of the CPA...

MWS:  Yes, we agree on this.

»
»      I do not understand how new applications will be "defined by the BP
» model", though...
»
»
» MWS:  Here, I am only quoting what I understand of the BP goals.  The
» registry is to be filled with BP models for specific applications.  The
immediate
» concern is whether the XML derived from the Specification Schema really
» contains what is needed to interface to the rest of the CPP/CPA. Chris
said that he
» would continue discussing this with Karsten.

     well, my issue is not only what you raise.
     In some way, the BP describes a collaboration between two parties.
Each
party
     has its own legacy software that would implement the actual execution
of
the
     parts of the collaboration pertaining to the relevant role. Does not
matter,
     IMHO, if a party uses an "existing legacy" or creates a brand new
legacy.
     The BP describes the collaboration, not the legacy, IMHO ! So, I
imagine,
     the Registry will be filled with collaboration model instances, not
with
     legacy application model instances !

MWS:  I had the impression that the full BP metamodel includes the whole
application (legacy plus collaboration-aware). However the only BP document
I
have seen lately is the Specification Schema specification, so you may be
right.

»
»      Marty, sorry but at this point I do not understand which is the
final
»     answer to the original question which was :
»
»           I would change "...and the business-application functions..."
into
»           "...and the back-end functions..."

MWS:  As I said below, I use the term "business applications" to refer to
the
combination of "legacy" plus the collaboration-aware part.  I intended to
use
the term only when there is no need to distinguish between the two.

»
» MWS:  Everyone has a different view of what an application is.  There
were
» a lot of discussions of this in the Boston meeting.  I intended
"business-applications
» functions" as a broad term encompassing both what you are calling the
back-end functions
» and the CPA-aware parts of the application.  I see that I will have to
review this
» question.
»

     In the CPP doc, line 334, what is written is :
     "The Collaboration-Protocol layer is the interface between the
CPA-defined
     business transactions and the business-application functions that
actually
     perform the business transactions. "
     So, if the business-application functions also include the CPA-aware
parts,
     it would read as if the Collaboration Protocol layer would interface
the
     CPA with itself.

MWS:  Thank you.  I seem to have made an error in this paragraph.  I don't
like the
term "legacy" because it implies only what we inherited from the past.  I
will work
on these words.


Best regards
/Stefano