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: TP teleconference minutes - Feb. 28, 2001


I am sorry I did not attend the conf call and, thus, did not comment on this
during it.
I disagree on the sentence :

» 2. Multi-party collaborations can always be reduced to sets of binary
» collaborations, each with a separate CPA

I agree that, for V1, we assume that this is possible. But I do not think
that this would account any general situation.

/stefano


» -----Original Message-----
» From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
» Sent: 01 March 2001 17:32
» To: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
» Subject: TP teleconference minutes - Feb. 28, 2001
»
»
» Here are Tony Weida's minutes of the Feb. 28 conference call, with a few
» minor additions by me.
»
» Regards,
» Marty
»
»
» Attendees:
»
» Jamie Clark
» Dale Moberg
» Becky Reed
» Marty Sachs
» Tony Weida
»
»
» Becky is working on the new FTP definition to be finalized by
» Friday night.
»
» Dale noted that the Security team has a teleconference going on
» at the same
» time as our call.
»
» Marty reminded us of concerns he has about send capabilities (for details
» of
» this and other items, see his Feb. 26 listserv posting on "CPA-CPP ver.
» 0.92
» distributed today").  First, send properties are tied to specific receive
» protocols.  According to Marty, Chris thought that was okay.  Also,
» SendingProtocol is a child of Transport.  Dale responded that he put it
» there to aid CPA negotiation based on CPPs. We decided to leave the send
» capabilities as is.
»
» Dale agreed with Marty that the cardinality for SendingProtocol
» in a CPA is
» exactly one.
»
» Tony accepted an action item to contact Chris and settle with him on the
» mechanism for validating references to process specifications.
» One specific
» issue is whether there should be separate digests of the
» Process-Specification
» Documents or whether they should be included within the overall signature
» of the CPP or CPA.
»
» Marty raise the question of whether a Packaging element is needed under
» Override elements and reported that Chris thought it unnecessary, that
» overrides should have packaging requirements in common with their
» ServiceBinding.
»
» Marty pointed out that the DTD specifies the cardinality of the Packaging
» element as one or more, but the text of our spec says exactly one.
» Conclusion: TBD.
»
» Marty asked about the cardinality of the triplet of child elements under
» Packaging.  Action item: Marty will discuss this with Dale.
»
» Tony questioned whether validation of ProcessSpecification references (via
» digests) should be done on an all-or-nothing basis.  After some
» discussion,
» it was agreed for phase one (at least) that if any ProcessSpecification
» reference is found to be invalid, the whole CPA is to be considered
» invalid.
» Depending on the outcome of discussions between Tony and Chris, this
» relates
» to the ProcessSpecification and/or Signature elements.
»
» Marty pointed out that if a pair of Parties doing business under multiple
» business processes wishes to be able to modify a single
» Process-Specification
» document without interrupting business under the others, they
» should create
» a sepaate CPA for that process.  It was noted that when a CPA references
» multiple Process-Specification Documents, it should be assumed that those
» processes are interrelated and invalidating the CPA and all of
» the Process-
» Specification documents when a problem develops with one of them is the
» correct action from a business viewpoint.
»
»
» Marty noted (at
» least) two cases where Parties might wish to test wether invalidation has
» occurred:
»
» 1. When constructing a CPA from CPPs, the CPPs and the referenced Process
» Specification Documents could be tested to see if anything has changed
» since the CPP was constructed.
»
» 2. Once the CPA has been installed, the Parties might want periodically
» to test it and the referenced Process-Specification Documents for
» validity.
» It was observed that when a CPA and the referenced Process-Specification
» documents are installed in a system, the information in them is generally
» digested by the installation tool and the original documents are not
» actively involved in runtime operations.  So the Parties are
» doing business
» based on the state of the CPA and Process Specification documents
» when they
» were installed and changes to these documents do not affect ongoing
» operations
» unless and until they have to be reinstalled.
»
» It was agreed that our document should discuss when ProcessSpecification
» references may be "cached" and when they may be checked for validity.
»
» Jamie noted that the Specification Schema team is making a couple of key
» assumptions regarding collaborations:
»
» 1. There can be infinite nesting of collaborations
»
» 2. Multi-party collaborations can always be reduced to sets of binary
» collaborations, each with a separate CPA
»
» Marty agreed that proceeding along the lines of #2 is consistent with the
» current state of the art in CPA processing.
»
» There will be no teleconference next week; our next meeting is scheduled
» for
» March 14.
»
» Respectfully submitted,
» Tony Weida
»
»
» ******************************************************************
» *******************
»
» 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
» ******************************************************************
» *******************
»
»
»
» ------------------------------------------------------------------
» To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
» "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-tp-request@lists.ebxml.org
»



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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC