[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] 1/5/2004: Late Binding ....
Monica, I know its nice to think of peer to peer - but certain transactions clearly one peer has to be the arbitator and make critical decisions. GM/Nissan with their suppliers and dealerships is hardly Peer-to-Peer, but the BPSS model makes sense, but right now - GM / Nissan would only want to share the sub-BPSS for dealership with them - and not everyone else, and vice versa. There's complex interactions here - and we can model them and make them run smoothly. Similarly - re-usable 'chunks' do not resolve solely around a business document exchange. I believe we fundamentally need an <include> statement, along with all that entails - versioning, a sub-BPSS best-practices, and worked examples. This is obviously something we need to discuss further as you indicated. Hopefully most of the pieces for this already exist - we merely need to document the 'how to' and provide some 'glue' syntax to bring it all together quickly and easily. Thanks, DW. > > > > > mm2: The main point of my response Dave is that you are mixing BPEL > concepts in BPSS. You talked about a controlling party - in BPSS the > relationship is peer-to-peer. Thanks >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]