RE: ebxml trp mhs spec and workflow

[Rik Drummond <rvd2@worldnet.att.net>]

i don't have the answers, and i don't want scope creep to set in and cause
problems. However, what was needed by this interEXCHANGE application was the
old style workflow based on messaging and not databases (these are the two
ways to do workflow). i think it is a mix of trp, bp, and tpp. but i don't
know. maybe i should talk to these groups about this at tokyo as a heads
up.... but again, i don't want to spoil the current trp or tpp direction by
introducing new discussions on implementation at this time... just get
people thinking about it.....


this workflow would have to be done to support two ways: 1) the tpp could
hold all the info sometimes and 2) the message headers would have to hold
part are all of the info the other times.... best regards, rik

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 2:44 PM
To: Krishna Sankar
Cc: Christopher Ferris; Rik Drummond; ebXML-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: ebxml trp mhs spec and workflow



We need to understand a lot better what kind of routing is needed.  If
routing is to a specific "port" at the destination, then
ConversationID, ServiceInterface, and Action should be suffient for
routing.  If routing has to be to something behind an action, then there is
a question of whether the MSH has to deal with that routing information or
whether it belongs in the payload (or payload header).

Let's watch the scope creep.

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



Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com> on 10/31/2000 03:06:13 PM

To:   Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, Rik Drummond
      <rvd2@worldnet.att.net>
cc:   ebXML-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  RE: ebxml trp mhs spec and workflow



Chris,

     If you are looking at workflow as co-operating business processes, it
is a
BP issue. But if we look ar workflow as a routing problem as well, we could
add some routing stuff at the TRP level. This could be one more case where
we need control messages.

     cheers

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 8:47 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