[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] Re: [ebsoa] Re: [ebxml-bp] Closing the gap between MSI and BSI and move on
So far I gather: 1. The BSI (Business Service Interface) is not really an interface. 2. BSI is like an abstract class (or a stereotyped <<abstract>> UML class diagram) and not meant to directly have instances (no "new" method defined). It can be extended to classes that are themselves implementable(?) or concrete. Not clear here, but probably not relevant. An item named "interface" that is not an interface seems a bit confusing. You can imagine how some of us might have overlooked that subtlety. Still where is the harm in saying that a business has services that have interfaces? Shall we talk of these as BSI<<ebXML>> to ward off our apparent "abuses of notation"? It might really be fairer to allow non-architectural groups to use the term and acronyms involving "interface" because that is what we are talking about. Maybe Abstract Business Service Class for the architectural catch-all? -----Original Message----- From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 2:38 PM To: Dale Moberg Cc: Monica J. Martin; David Webber (XML); Sacha Schlegel; ebXML BP; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org; ebsoa Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] Re: [ebsoa] Re: [ebxml-bp] Closing the gap between MSI and BSI and move on Dale: No problem, let me explain. BSI is an abstract, all inclusive architectural term used to describe how another party can engage with the party. It was used rather than tying the architecture specifically to CPP, CPA, BPSS and anything else. We used this for a number of reasons. One was at the time, it was clear that Core Components would not produce Schemas or other payload metadata. Such is clearly needed at the concrete level to build an implementation. Also BPSS told the TA group that they were not working on a serializable format for BPSS, something that has since been corrected. It was a catch-all concept (business items, technical parameters, etc.) but no explicit set of parameters was named to make up the concept. Instead of interfaces to java classes (which do usually use the convention of the class name), think of it like an abstract java class that is not for implementation. It gets implemented using other concrete classes. In a UML class view diagram, when one uses the <<abstract>> stereotype, I think the convention is not to duplicate the abstract class name in the concrete class name. To implement the concept, one would inherit the concept into their specific ebXML architectural model, then specialize and elaborate it using things like CPA, BPSS, SOAP, WSDL etc. In short, it is best described as a component of a reference model that architecture, even though it does talk about it within the architecture quite a bit. There is no really need to worry about it unless someone starts trying to discuss building a concrete BSI spec ;-) Duane Dale Moberg wrote: >Hi Duane, > >It seems a bit confusing to me to say that something that implements an >interface cannot use the name of the interface when indicating what >interface it is implementing. > >E.g., java classes implement interfaces and use the name of the >interface to indicate the interface(s) so implemented. > >Puzzled what your point is. Too abstruse for me. Not going to worry >about it unless you clearly explain the badness. > >If there is a gap, I guess it means that there needs to be a realignment >of the outgrown 1.04 draft with what is going on. Too bad we don't have >a replacement yet :-) > >Dale > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] >Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 1:53 PM >To: Monica J. Martin >Cc: David Webber (XML); Sacha Schlegel; ebXML BP; >ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org; ebsoa >Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] Re: [ebsoa] Re: [ebxml-bp] Closing the gap >between MSI and BSI and move on > > > >Monica J. Martin wrote: > > > >>mm2: Education is always an opportunity Duane. Remember that the/these >> >> > > > >>interface(s) may actually become physical in a deployable logical >>environment. I believe our original text surrounding this relationship >> >> > > > >>was clear after all. However, I will in more detail review the many >>posts last night and today to see what can be improved upon in the >>text that was agreed to yesterday morning. Thanks. >> >> > >Monica: > >When they become physical, they should be called CPA, eb MS and BPSS. > >There is no concrete BSI. BSI is an abstract concept - it would be very > >bad practice (and most confusing) for someone to develop a concrete >thing and give it the same name. > >Education attempt: >When modeling, BSI is an abstract concept. >When implementing, can be done via CPA, MS and BPSS. > >Duane > > > > -- *********** Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/ Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources - http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html ***********
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]