ebBP TC Teleconference Call 20 Sept 2005 Present: Dodds Green Moberg Nagahashi St. Amand Martin Regrets: Schlegel 6 present Agenda: High level model very interesting/promising Different definitions and views of orchestration 1. Approval of minutes 6 Sept 2005 Ref: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-bp/document.php?document_id=14549 Quorum not achieved. No objections 2. Transforms and progress Ref: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-bp/email/archives/200508/msg00041.html Conditions on business transaction ================================== Martin; Question was raised in the comments in the .xsl by Nagahashi. Nagahashi: Incompatibility with different XSLT processors will be corrected. RosettaNet is using PIPs with ebBP. QOS parameters (TTP, TTAR) are used. After further research, RosettaNet doesn't seem to use those conditions. Need to verify this information. Since we added roles to BT, RosettaNet can use BT to describe the PIPs. In previous version we had to use Binary Collaboration. May need to add quality of service to BT. Martin: Sent inquiries to Brian Hayes to understand why this change of conditions from BT to BTA was made. The indication was similar to Moberg's comments. Dale, provide your comments. Moberg: How BTA is used, it references the BT and allows specialization of the BT. This allows the BT as reusable as possible. They can be reused in the Business Collaboration. An XSLT transforms can move those conditions (BT=>BTA) and is already handled. Industry users use v1.04 and v1.05. Martin: The value / balance of the BT use and its specialization as a BTA should be considered. Moberg: For example, if we UBAC rules/requirements are developed and we reference, the reference could be on the BTA not the BT. This is my design preference. Martin: Please gain more information from RosettaNet. Green: I've not seen a need to use conditions on the BT. Have a particular interest that these technologies can be used together, particularly for small business. Stephen is here from UBL. I am working for United Kingdom local government, and make it possible to be applied to local entities. Nagahashi: RosettaNet may prefer to define a quality of service as default value for BT. Moberg: All the specifics exist on the BTA, including defaults. What types of information are we considering? We should ask David Webber as well. Should consider any change in the context of the scope of v2.0.1. ACTION: Martin - Ask Webber and Cristiano Novelli, if we need to add constrainted defaults on BT or BTA. Status: Request made 26 Sept 2005. (http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-bp/email/archives/200509/msg00012.html) 3. Other comments: a. UBL comments received - Standalone UBL instance Easy fix - will be handled in PR update. Handle as editorial and packaging change only. - Correct use of nameID in UBL instance Green: Hemopo example was using name on Performs rather than nameID. Martin: Will send instance document and the Spec to Green and Moberg to cross check to make updates where required. Status: Information received from Green and distributed to the TC list 26 Sept 2005. Specific questions sent to Hemopo to gain greater context to external roles and their use in process diagram and instance. ACTION: Martin/Moberg/Green - Collaborate on UBL instance updates. Status: Collaboration in work and questions raised with originator 20-26 Sept 2005. (Posted 26 Sept 2005 - check Email messages). - Use of urn with nameID construct Green: Using the small business subset of UBL to specify in an ebBP instance, we need a URN. A URN can't be used in a nameID because of the ":". I had to use the name. Nagahashi: The nameID is intended to be used as a reference to a document. What is the intent of using URN? Green: Use as an ID within a document, it makes sense not to use a URN. Is it sensible to use a URN as a name? Nagahashi: Perhaps. Green: The business expert may see the nameID as an identification of that particular schema. Martin: There are other criteria that may be used by a community. Green: The specification is very technical and a user may have some challenges. Need a FAQ for users. Nagahashi: Is this issue related to ProcessSpecification element? nameID is somewhat redundant. Should we delete the nameID here? Martin: We have many attributes here for technical specification, instance (community), uuid, etc. Green: On the business document, you don't have a namespace attribute, you have a location only. The location is not enough to formally define a specification for a business document. Martin: We do allow many logical document fragments to compile a business document. Green: I agree with for the small business subset. However, otherwise, having an identifier for some description outside of the ebBP is important. Moberg: What level of specificity is required? You can have multiple specifications, and files that can be documented. Is there a specific way to map metadata of a business document to the business document on the wire? Martin: Can we require namespace qualification? Green: You don't have a uuid? The existing uuid is internal focused not registry based. Martin: We have a reference in Section 3.4.7. Do we need more? Green: We could overload the name attribute to be a URN and a namespace. St. Amand: There is no perfect solution. Martin: Need more descriptive text to guide implementers/provide suggestions. I'll look at for more information in the technical specification and in schema annotations. Reconvene 26 Sept 2005 to discuss further. ACTION: Martin - Research if more text is required. Status: Review in work 26 Sept 2005. b. BPMN update and OMG meeting Defer until 26 Sept 2005. c. Internal processes Use of ebBP across distributed organizational departments Defer until Schlegel returns on his MSI-BSI questions. Updated comments list ref: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-bp/download.php/14550/ebxmlbp-v2.0.1-Document-pr-PublicReviewComments-r02-en-091905.pdf