RE: ebxml trp mhs spec and workflow

[Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>]

FULLY AGREE, Rik !!!
This is the kind of things the architecture should specify...or not ?

/Stefano

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rik Drummond [mailto:rvd2@worldnet.att.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 1:06 AM
> > To: Marc Breissinger; Burdett, David; 'Christopher Ferris'
> > Cc: ebXML-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> > Subject: RE: ebxml trp mhs spec and workflow
> > 
> > 
> > you are missing my point... it idea needs to go in the architecture
> > document, at least spelling out how we are going to handle it.... best
> > regards, rik
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc Breissinger [mailto:marcb@webmethods.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 2:16 PM
> > To: Burdett, David; 'Christopher Ferris'; Rik Drummond
> > Cc: ebXML-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> > Subject: RE: ebxml trp mhs spec and workflow
> > 
> > 
> > I agree with Chris and David.  Let's focus on providing the 
> transport and
> > let folks like WfMC define the vocabularies for implementing workflow on
> > that transport.
> > 
> > marc
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 2:48 PM
> > To: 'Christopher Ferris'; Rik Drummond
> > Cc: ebXML-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> > Subject: RE: ebxml trp mhs spec and workflow
> > 
> > 
> > It isn't clear to me that this couldn't be effected over
> > base TR&P MS since each exchange *could* be handled
> > as a message between two parties.
> > ## I agree ##
> > 
> > Even so, I agree that it does need to be addressed, but
> > I don't believe for a minute that TR&P owns defining
> > how it should be modelled or implemented.
> > ## I agree ##
> > 
> > David
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@East.Sun.COM]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 10:17 AM
> > To: Rik Drummond
> > Cc: ebXML-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> > Subject: Re: ebxml trp mhs spec and workflow
> > 
> > 
> > Rik,
> > 
> > It isn't clear to me that there are necessarily more
> > headers. There may well be, but we'll cross that bridge
> > when we get there.
> > 
> > The real issue is defining a multi-party TPA-like thing
> > which describes a multi-party collaboration exchange to
> > effect a supply-chain-like business process which spans
> > more than two parties.
> > 
> > It isn't clear to me that this couldn't be effected over
> > base TR&P MS since each exchange *could* be handled
> > as a message between two parties.
> > 
> > Even so, I agree that it does need to be addressed, but
> > I don't believe for a minute that TR&P owns defining
> > how it should be modelled or implemented.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Chris
> > 
> > Rik Drummond wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >