RE: Suggestions from Karsten Riemenr

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

Marty,

	I agree with this explanation. I thought mine was not very
different from this one.
My take was that WSDL is not enough by itself; if we complete it
with WSEL/WSFL, then I see the equivalence.

I do not understrand the following sentence, though:

� So, an ebXML BSI configured out of
� a CPP plus Process-Specification document (the BPSS instance document)
� reflects an interface including both the equivalent of the WSDL
� abstraction and the concrete endpoint properties described in the CPP.

Is the last "CPP" reference what you meant?

Thanks a lot for the comment!

/stefano

� -----Original Message-----
� From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
� Sent: 27 June 2001 20:18
� To: Stefano POGLIANI
� Cc: Welsh, David; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
� Subject: RE: Suggestions from Karsten Riemenr
�
�
�
� Stefano,
�
� While I agree with most of your comments, I would like to offer a somewhat
� different view of these matters.
�
� WSDL does not overlap the CPP/CPA at all.  Indeed, WSDL, as you say,  is a
� way in which a Web Service advertises the way it can be accessed.  In the
� ebXML world, this advertisement is effectively part of the BPSS instance
� document that is referenced by the CPP and CPA.  More precisely, the
� combination of WSFL and WSDL is architecturally equivalent to the BPSS
� instance document in that the combination describes both the abstract
� service interface and the choreography.  So, an ebXML BSI
� configured out of
� a CPP plus Process-Specification document (the BPSS instance document)
� reflects an interface including both the equivalent of the WSDL
� abstraction
� and the concrete endpoint properties described in the CPP.
�
� Since WSEL has not yet been exposed outside of IBM except for the four
� letters and the very brief description in the WSFL specification, I can't
� comment on its role at this time.  Given that the E stands for "endpoint",
� an obvious inference can be made as to how it conceptually relates to
� ebXML.
�
� 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
� ******************************************************************
� *******************
�
�
�
� Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com> on 06/27/2001 11:51:01 AM
�
� To:   "Welsh, David" <David.Welsh@nordstrom.com>, Martin W
�       Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
� cc:
� Subject:  RE: Suggestions from Karsten Riemenr
�
�
�
� The idea of approaching the CPP/CPA with WSDL has been recurrent in some
� discussions I recently had.
�
� I just would like to add my 2 cents here, expressing my own position.
�
� I think that WSDL and CPP/CPA have some area of overlap, which does not
� mean
� that, IMHO, they overlap.
� The "area of overlap" is the area in which both the specifications aim to
� define how a network component (the WebService or the BSI,
� according to the
� different vocabularies used here) defines itself to other components. So,
� in
� my understanding:
�      - WSDL is a way in which WebServices advertise the way in which
�        they can be accessed.
�        I apologize for the extreme simplification, but WSDL is a sort
�        of API (in XML form) with binding infos
�      - the CPP/CPA, **in addition to other things**, provides a
�        similar "advertising" functionality but it is not API-oriented
�        but is "business process" oriented.
�        Instead of saying which are the "technical doors", the
�        approach of the CPP/CPA is to expose the "logical doors",
�        i.e. the doors "interpreted" in a business process context.
�
� If this succint description makes sense, then I think that WSDL
� and CPP/CPA
� tackle the problem in different ways (in addition of CPP/CPA doing more
� than
� this advertising, at least up to the state-of the WSDL specs). So, I think
� that it would be very difficult to find a compromise on these different
� approaches. It may be possible to "expose both interfaces" at the same
� time,
� perhaps.
�
� I personally think that exposing "technical entry points" is a
� very minimal
� approach, that is good for trivial WS such as currency-converters,
� weather-forecasts and the like (which are the ones that are normally
� mentioned in the literature, btw...). "technical entry points" do not
� capture the "context", do not capture the information about the
� environment
� (and, why not, the reasons) for which a WS is called.
�
� I think that an ebXML BSI, configured out of a CPP, may "reflect" a
� WSDL-like interface. But this could become much more useful when the whole
� WSEL/WSFL picture will be in place.
�
� /stefano
�
� � -----Original Message-----
� � From: Welsh, David [mailto:David.Welsh@nordstrom.com]
� � Sent: 25 June 2001 16:58
� � To: 'Martin W Sachs'; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
� � Subject: RE: Suggestions from Karsten Riemenr
� �
� �
� � Marty,
� � It would be very useful if 1. was elaborated a little more.
� � Couldn't 2 and 4 be tied to the same thing ? What's behind WSDL
� � is then left to the individual organization to operate; ie. very
� � elaborate system automation or semi-/manual efforts to create the
� � web service. But WSDL appears very important.
� � I'd suggest the BP jury is still out on should there even be a
� � procedural 'BP language' like BPML/WSFL/XLANG, or should BP be
� � more a declarative approach which probably resembles more of the
� � real business world.
� � -Dave
� �
� �
� � > -----Original Message-----
� � > From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
� � > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 7:40 AM
� � > To: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
� � > Subject: Suggestions from Karsten Riemenr
� � >
� � >
� � > I have received the following suggestions from Karsten Riemer:
� � >
� � > 1. Use of the 'substitution' capability that was added to
� � > BPSS at Vienna.
� � > In
� � > general this expands to how to have generic business
� � > processes, and yet
� � > have
� � > easy to process specializations of those for the specific partners.
� � >
� � > 2. Alignment with WSDL. Generically this expands to how to
� � > best register
� � > the
� � > metadata about a partner's capabilities relative to the BP and its
� � > documents.
� � >
� � > 3. Alignment with other BP languages like BPML and WFSL. This
� � > may seem like
� � > more of a pure BP issue. But actually BPML may play an
� � > important role in
� � > describing what specifically a partner will do internally in
� � > response to an
� � > ebXML exchange. Generically this expands to how we apply XML
� � > to the link
� � > between b2b and EAI.
� � >
� � > 4. Specification of a Business Service Interface. ebXML phase
� � > one shyed
� � > away
� � > from specificying the actual software architecture. We just
� � > hinted that a
� � > BSI
� � > is configured with a CPP. Someone, probably in OASIS should
� � > step up to this
� � > task.
� � >
� � > Items 2 and 4 are clearly CPP-CPA issues.  Item 4 should be joint work
� � > among CPPA, MSG, and BP.
� � > I am less certain about items 1 and 3.  I look forward to
� � > having Karsten
� � > participate and explain.
� � >
� � >
� � > 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
� � > **************************************************************
� � > ***********************
� � >
� �
�
�
�
�
�