Marty
I agree that a sensible CPA tool should digest the CPA into a table that
allows look up in an efficient manner. The problem is that I am not sure
that it would (or could) actually do it. For example, if you wanted to use a
very simple routing rule, e.g. "all the messages that company xyz sends to
IBM go to one URL", then the CPA processor would have to **infer** this rule
from analyzing all the CPAs that define the individual collaborations
between xyz co and IBM. This type of inference processing is both hard to do
and un-reliable since the inference processor cannot assume that the next
CPA it receives will not follow the rule. Secondly, if you wanted to change
the URL for all these messages then you would have to change all the CPAs
rather than just change the single simple rule.
To solve this problem, you need to be able to express **directly** a rule in
its simplest form, (e.g. all messages from xyz co for IBM go to one URL).
However the current CPA structure doesn't support this type of rule
definition (Is that correct?).
Finally, the current perception of a CPA is, IMO, that it is the **only**
way to specify the information required for ebXML Messaging to work when
clearly there could be more appropriate ways of specifying the information
for some circumstances. Hence my reasons for wanting to be able to use ebXML
Messaging without CPAs.
Finally, I do think that CPAs are a good idea especially where you have
point-to-point communication, they're just not the only good idea ;)
Regards
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 12:48 PM
To: Burdett, David
Cc: 'Arvola Chan'; David Fischer; ebXML Msg; Pete Wenzel
Subject: RE: PIP IDs
David,
Please forgive my repetition, but...
Your two points:
look up the CPA from the CPA ID and route the message to the endpoint
identified, or
look up the Party, Service and Action in a table to identify where to
send the message to.
are really one and the same since any sensible CPA tool will digest the CPA
into a table that allows looking up the routing information in the most
efficient manner. The only difference between them is where the table
comes from.
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
****************************************************************************
*********
"Burdett, David" <> on 07/19/2001 03:17:41 PM
To: "'Arvola Chan'" <>, Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,
David Fischer <>
cc: ebXML Msg <>, Pete Wenzel
<>
Subject: RE: PIP IDs
Thanks Arvola !! You have saved me from writing an email. I absolutely
concur with what you say ... you can have one "service"
supporting multiple different business transactions. If we do this it also
means that we can have one conversation involving multiple different
business transactions, e.g. a 3A4 (Create Purchase Order) followed by a
3A8 (Change Purchase Order) where the change purchase order was for the
order created by the create purchase order.
Another use case is where you can have the same service used in multiple
different collaborations for example consider the following two
collaborations:
Example 1, Invoice Payment:
1. BT1 - Present Invoice
2. BT2 - Make Payment
Example 2, Pay Refund:
1. BT1 - Request Refund
2. BT2 - Make Payment
Both of these involve making a payment which, in Business Transaction
terms, would be carried out the same way.
Where I think it gets really critical to separate the two is when you want
to route messages. If Party, Service and Action are always the same,
irrespective of the business process in which they are being used then you
can use these three fields for routing purposes in a consistent way.
On reflection this I think is one of the issues I have with always
requiring a CPA as defined in the CPA/CPP spec as you can actually quite
reasonably do routing in two different ways:
look up the CPA from the CPA ID and route the message to the endpoint
identified, or
look up the Party, Service and Action in a table to identify where to
send the message to.
The former allows you to vary the endpoint very flexibly and alter where
you send a message to depending on the business process you are in, the
latter allows you to have simpler rules but with less flexibility.
I think both use cases are valid ... and required ..
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Arvola Chan [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 9:04 AM
To: Martin W Sachs; David Fischer
Cc: Burdett, David; ebXML Msg; Pete Wenzel
Subject: Re: PIP IDs
Marty,
Up to now, RosettaNet PIPs are either request-response (two-actions) or
notification (one-action) style business processes. Earlier versions of
PIP 3A4 are an exception in the sense that PIP 3A4 covers Create Purchase
Order (request-response), Change Purchase Order (request-response) and
Cancel Purchase Order (request-response) interactions. Recently, PIP 3A4
has been split into 3A4 (Create Purchase Order), 3A8 (Change Purchase
Order), and 3A9 (Cancel Purchase Order) in order to achieve some degree of
uniformity across PIPs (I believe). Therefore, I think it is reasonable to
equate existing RosettaNet PIPs with BPSS Business Transactions.
In the RosettaNet message header, there are separate elements to identify
the PIP ID, the PIP action and the Service. Multiple PIPs may be
implemented by the same service, e.g., there may be a Buyer service
implementing PIPs 3A4, 3A8, 3A9 from the buyer perspective, and a Seller
service implementing the same PIPs from the seller perspective.
I don't think we should equate PIP ID with Service and action with "the
particular business transaction within the PIP". Otherwise, we will not be
able to capture the role information, e.g., the ability to distinguish a
Buyer Service from a Seller Service, and a request action from a response
action.
From the RosettaNet point of view, it will be desirable if we can have
distinct Service, PIP (equivalently BPSS Business Transaction), and action
elements in the message header. Alternatively, we can use the Service
element to capture role information (e.g., Buyer vs Seller), and use the
Action element to capture the PIP ID. Whether we are dealing with a
request action or a response action will have to be inferred from the
Service element.
Regards,
-Arvola
Arvola Chan ()
TIBCO Software (on loan to RosettaNet)
+1-650-846-5046 (US-Pacific)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin W Sachs" <>
To: "David Fischer" <>
Cc: "Burdett, David" <>; "ebXML Msg" <
>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: PIP IDs
In my opinion it makes more sense for Service to point to the PIP ID and
action to point to the particular business transaction within the PIP. In
other words one execution of a PIP is a conversation. I believe that some
of the PIPs include multiple business transactions.
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
****************************************************************************
*********
David Fischer <> on 07/19/2001 10:45:54 AM
To: "Burdett, David" <>
cc: ebXML Msg <>
Subject: PIP IDs
David, in the F2F you mentioned the need for a new element to contain
industry specific business process identifiers such as a RosettaNet PIP
identifier. Could this be done with Service/Action where the Service would
be something like RNet and the Action something like PIP3A1 (Request
Quote)?
<eb:Service>urn:services:RNet</eb:Service>
<eb:Action>PIP3A1</eb:Action>
Regards,
David Fischer
Drummond Group.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to:
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to:
