RE: ebxml trp mhs spec and workflow

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

Rik,

Why would workflow require anything new and different in the messaging
service headers? Why can't it be viewed as one (or several) of the many
kinds of business process that use the messaging service?

I would expect that any business process will require its own header on top
of the messaging service header and that's where the BP-specific
information would go.

In any case, as you say, that's out in phase II or phase III.  (Though the
TP team may have other ideas about how much it can accomplish in phase 1).

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

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



Rik Drummond <rvd2@worldnet.att.net> on 10/31/2000 12:52:04 PM

To:
cc:   ebXML-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  RE: ebxml trp mhs spec and workflow



no, i don't think it belongs somewhere else completely. however it is
clearly phase ii or phase iii. the mhs will have to support it which will
require more headers... so it is probably on of those over lap areas....
best regards, rik

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 10:47 AM
To: Rik Drummond
Cc: ebXML-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: ebxml trp mhs spec and workflow


This is something which in truth belongs not in TR&P
but in TP/BP. Stefano Pogliani of Sun is very interested
and knowledgable in this domain and is exploring how
this might map to ebXML.

In truth, this is something which rightly belongs in
a phase II of ebXML (IMHO). It is also the domain of
a market exchange service provider and could easily
be mapped onto ebXML through an intermediary router.

My $0.02,

Chris

Rik Drummond wrote:
>
> i just spent an hour or more on a conference call with several exchanges
> attempting to route data among themselves. they call it routing, but what
> they really need is multi-organizational workflow.  we need to discuss
this
> next week. who in this group has workflow experience? best regards, rik