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:
My understanding is that RosettaNet is in the
process of using ebXML BPSS to repackage existing PIPs into more machine
processable packages, as well as to describe more complex collaboration
scenarios. (Existing PIP specifications consist of machine-processable DTDs and
Word document descriptions plus message guidelines that are primarily intended
for human consumption. These are being replaced with XSDs, BPSS process
specifications, and constraints described using OCL.)
Existing PIPs (which consist of request-response
actions or just notification actions) correspond to ebXML binary collaborations
each of which comprises a single business transaction activity. The
business transaction activity would be defined in terms of a business
transaction that either has both a requesting activity and a responding
activity, or just a requesting activity. The messages exchanged within a PIP
instance (either two action messages plus two acknowledgement messages, or one
action message plus one acknowledgement message) would constitute one
conversation. In fact, in both the 1.1 and 2.0 versions of the RosettaNet
Implementation Framework, there is no mechanism in the Service Header to tie
together multiple related PIP instances (e.g., Create Purchase Order, Change
Purchase Order, Cancel Purchase Order) into the same conversation. The
correlation will have to be achieved through elements in the message payload
(Service Content in RosettaNet parlance).
Moving forward, for newly developed PIPs that make
use of existing PIPs as building blocks, I think it will definitely be useful to
have a conversation ID that tie together the execution of related PIP
instances.
Regards
-Arvola
Arvola Chan (arvola@tibco.com)
TIBCO Software
(on loan to RosettaNet)
+1-650-846-5046 (US-Pacific)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: PIP IDs
Arvola,
Thanks for the clarification. As you are probably
aware, there are other
response routing issues that have surfaced lately to
the CPPA team, so this
topic will be on the CPPA agenda as well. This
is an area where the MSG
and CPPA teams will have to work together.
I
have been assuming that for RosettaNet, a conversation equals one
execution
of one PIP. I believe that your note says that a single unit
of
business in RosettaNet can involve several PIPs. What is your view of
the
relationship of a PIP to a coversation. Is each PIP a
separate
conversation or should execution of all the related PIPs in a unit
of
business be treated as a single conversation? Since the
conversation
boundaries are determined by the application, this is really
your call for
RosettaNet but I am interested in your
thinking.
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
*************************************************************************************
Arvola
Chan <arvola@tibco.com> on 07/19/2001
12:03:32 PM
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single
word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-msg-request@lists.oasis-open.org------------------------------------------------------------------
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