[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: Suggestions from Karsten Riemenr
Stefano,
You are correct that I am saying that the function of the
process-specification document (i.e. BPSS) could be performed by WSFL/WSDL.
WSFL describes a collaborative process in workflow terms and in terms of
roles (see the ServiceProvider element). WSDL is the vehicle for
advertising the public ports in the WSFL description.
As to WSEL, I regret that I am unable to say more than what is mentioned in
the WSFL specification. Once IBM publishes a WSEL specification, please be
assured that I will be prepared to discuss it in great detail.
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" <[email protected]> on 06/28/2001 03:43:30 AM
To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: "Welsh, David" <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Suggestions from Karsten Riemenr
Marty, I got it, thanks a lot for the explanation.
Actually, without entering WSEL it is a little bit difficult to evaluate.
The impression that I have, however, is that it seems that you consider
the CPP as a sort of "shell" (with characteristics that will be found
in WSEL and some other that are present in WSDL) with, in addition,
the reference to a Collaborative Process Spec. This same Process Spec
is, today, covered by BPSS but, I assume, you imagine it could be
covered also by a combination of WSFL/WSDL.
Is this a correct interpretation ?
Thanks a lot.
/stefano
� -----Original Message-----
� From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:[email protected]]
� Sent: 27 June 2001 21:40
� To: Stefano POGLIANI
� Cc: Welsh, David; [email protected]
� Subject: RE: Suggestions from Karsten Riemenr
�
�
�
� Stefano,
�
� We are both correct.
�
� I meant that the last sentence say "CPP". I will explain:
�
� There are three different but functionally similar models that we can
talk
� about
�
� 1. The CPP plus the Process-Specification document. The
� Process-Specification document describes the collaborative
� process in terms
� of roles. The CPP adds specific party IDs and all the endpoint
properties
� to the description in the Process-Specification document.
�
� 2. The CPP plus some combination of WSDL/WSFL. Here the CPP
� adds endpoint
� properties to the abstract definition of the choreography and interfaces
� that is in WSDL/WSDF.
�
� 3. WSEL plus WSDL/WSFL. Here WSEL would add endpoint properties
(whatever
� they might be) to WSDL/WSFL. Again, I can't say much about this
� combination yet. You can infer what you want from what is in WSFL.
�
� With regard to the sentence you quoted, I had model (2) in mind.
�
� 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" <[email protected]> on 06/27/2001 03:03:28 PM
�
� To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
� cc: "Welsh, David" <[email protected]>,
� <[email protected]>
� Subject: RE: Suggestions from Karsten Riemenr
�
�
�
� 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:[email protected]]
� � Sent: 27 June 2001 20:18
� � To: Stefano POGLIANI
� � Cc: Welsh, David; [email protected]
� � 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 <[email protected]> on 06/27/2001 11:51:01 AM
� �
� � To: "Welsh, David" <[email protected]>, Martin W
� � Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, [email protected]
� � 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:[email protected]]
� � � Sent: 25 June 2001 16:58
� � � To: 'Martin W Sachs'; [email protected]
� � � 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:[email protected]]
� � � > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 7:40 AM
� � � > To: [email protected]
� � � > 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
� � � > **************************************************************
� � � > ***********************
� � � >
� � �
� �
� �
� �
� �
� �
�
�
�
�
�
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC