MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
ebxml-msg message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
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
TIBCO Software (on loan to RosettaNet)
+1-650-846-5046 (US-Pacific)
----- Original Message -----
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe"
in the body to: ebxml-msg-request@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC