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: initial draft of CPP-CPA Specification


My replies embedded below.



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


      Do you mean new applications that will be developed as already
 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
 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.
     has its own legacy software that would implement the actual execution
     parts of the collaboration pertaining to the relevant role. Does not
     IMHO, if a party uses an "existing legacy" or creates a brand new
     The BP describes the collaboration, not the legacy, IMHO ! So, I
     the Registry will be filled with collaboration model instances, not
     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
have seen lately is the Specification Schema specification, so you may be

      Marty, sorry but at this point I do not understand which is the
     answer to the original question which was :

           I would change "...and the business-application functions..."
           "...and the back-end functions..."

MWS:  As I said below, I use the term "business applications" to refer to
combination of "legacy" plus the collaboration-aware part.  I intended to
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
 a lot of discussions of this in the Boston meeting.  I intended
 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

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

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC