Re: PIP IDs

[Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>]

Folks,

I think I agree with Scott, Arvola and Marty :). Bottomline is, the current model based
on the ConversationId, Service and Action is too inadequate to represent an arbitrarily
large "conversation", that is potentially "multilateral" (as opposed to the current
bilateral)  and consists of >= 1 sub bilateral business processes.

I think this would be one of important pieces of work for the next version of the MS
spec. We need to come up with a more comprehensive, generic, robust and extensible model
of a "conversation", that identifies a specific exchange belonging to a "conversation", a
business process instance within, the specific action with that process, the originating
and receiving parties, the originating and receiving service entities etc.

Regards, Prasad

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: PIP IDs
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:41:19 -0700
From: Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com>
To: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>
CC: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>,David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>,Burdett
David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>,ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>,Pete
Wenzel <Pete.Wenzel@RosettaNet.org>

>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.

Again, my view on this is to define a Qualified Invocation sequence
generically with an arbitrary number of tags, and
drop the tag names "Service" and "Action". Just as ebXML Message Service
defines a SOAP+Attachments Profile,
RosettaNet would define an ebXML Message Service Profile, which would
contain mapping to its PIP,etc,etc, (its invocation qualification).

Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com> on 07/19/2001 09:03:32 AM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, David Fischer
      <david@drummondgroup.com>
cc:   Burdett David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, ebXML Msg
      <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>, Pete Wenzel
      <Pete.Wenzel@RosettaNet.org>
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 (arvola@tibco.com)
TIBCO Software (on loan to RosettaNet)
+1-650-846-5046 (US-Pacific)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin W Sachs" <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>
To: "David Fischer" <david@drummondgroup.com>
Cc: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>;  "ebXML Msg" <
ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
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 <david@drummondgroup.com> on  07/19/2001 10:45:54 AM

To:   "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
cc:   ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
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.