Re: Difference between CPP-CPA specification and BP Specificationschema

[Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com>]

I talked to Chris Ferris late last week, and he assured me that our new spec
schema is properly reflected in the new CPP/CPA spec. I just looked at version
0.941 that  Marty sent out, and it is still not reflected there. So just to
make sure, I re-attach the e-mail I sent out before my vacation. It has the
proper mapping. The DTD attached to  that e-mail is likely to change slightly
for 1.0, but the role mapping should not change.

thanks,
-karsten

>Hi 
>
>in the latest CPP-CPA specification Ver 9.41 line 723-745 says the following
>
>7.4.5 Role element
>The REQUIRED Role element identifies which role in the Process Specification
>the Party is capable of supporting via the ServiceBinding element(s)
>siblings within this CollaborationRole element.
>
>The Role element has the following attributes:
>·	a REQUIRED name attribute,
>·	a FIXED xlink:type attribute,
>·	a REQUIRED xlink:href attribute.
>
>7.4.5.1 name attribute
>The REQUIRED name attribute is a string that gives a name to the Role. Its
>value is taken from one of the following sources in the Process
>Specification[ebBPSS] that is referenced by the ProcessSpecification element
>depending upon which element is the "root" (highest order) of the process
>referenced:
>·	initiator attribute of the binary-collaboration element,
>·	responder attribute of the binary-collaboration element,
>·	from attribute of the business-transaction-activity element,
>·	to attribute of the business-transaction-activity element,
>·	from attribute of the collaboration-activity element,
>·	to attribute of the collaboration-activity element,
>·	name attribute of the business-partner-role element.
>
><Nita>
>this requires to reflect the current [BPSS] attribute names. Moreover it
>implies that binary-collaboration may or may not be the root of a process.
>BP folks, is that so? 
>
></Nita>
>
>cheers
>
>- Nita

---

• From: Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com>
• To: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
• Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:45:57 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

Hi,
I sent Chris an updated DTD earlier this week, but as I know he was working
around the clock on a demo for London, he may not have caught these
implications.

The mapping to Roles that used to be:

initiator attribute of the binary-collaboration element
responder attribute of the binary-collaboration element
from attribute of the business-transaction-activity element
to attribute of the business-transaction-activity element
from attribute of the collaboration-activity element
to attribute of the collaboration-activity element
name attribute of the business-partner-role element

should now be:

AuthorizedRole attribute of the BinaryCollaboration  element (1st occurrence)
AuthorizedRole attribute of the BinaryCollaboration element (2nd occurrence)
fromAuthorizedRole  attribute of the BusinessTransactionActivity element
toAuthorizedRole attribute of the BusinessTransactionActivity element
fromAuthorizedRole attribute of the CollaborationActivity element
toAuthorizedRole attribute of the CollaborationActivity element
name attribute of the BusinessPartnerRole element

dtd attached,

-karsten

XA.Document

---