[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] Business Transaction definition
I have added an element called "DataExchange" to the current draft schema, and placed the original example in 2.0 syntax to test. I am attaching the file "text.xml" which is the BPSS 2.0 instance and a schema file for the 2.0 namespace that adds the DataExchange element. This exercise is to give an example of JJ's point about adding patterns. If the original example and the text.xml example are compared, several small syntax changes (such as attribute name changes) are also illustrated. However, the original example raises important and basic issues that need resolution before we have production deployment of 2.0 to the installed base. 1. Our new specialized business transactions are much more semantically precise than anything we previously used. They are "unforgiving" in their documentation of QOS and signal specifications. Earlier BP instances will not map easily into these new contexts. Should we: a. create a new very open element, something like the "DataExchange" element I cooked up for this problem, and use this for earlier BT conversions? b. adopt one of our current business transaction as the default to map into and thus "strengthen" any conversion to the more demanding type? c. other? 2. (Technical) The element "BusinessTransaction" currently serves as the substitution group head for all subsequent specializations by substitution. In CPPA 2.1, all the substitution group names end in "xxxHead" and are declared to be "abstract" so that they are not used in any real CPP or CPA-- only their substitution group alternatives can be used in valid instances. For BPSS should we do something like the CPPA technique so that people don't actually use the substitution group head? If we did this, we could then define a BusinessTransaction with weak semantics for use in conversion from previous BPSS instances (see point 1). TC feedback on this issue is really needed because it probably will be a source of confusion going forward to leave the head named "BusinessTransaction". For technical reasons related to the subtype constraint on substitution elements, the BusinessTransaction element itself has _no_ Requesting or Responding activities, for example. It is itself a kind of useless piece of xml schema machinery that must have certain features so that constraints do not get violated by the subtyping used for the real business transactions. -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:jeanjadu@Attachmate.com] Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 1:57 AM To: YANO Keisuke (????) Cc: ebXML BP Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] Business Transaction definition Kesuke-san: I assume that you are talking about the fact that the signals are predefined in v2.0 and the example BT that you give has signals on the request but not on the response? Is it a desirable feature? What would be the problem of using a CommercialTransaction which has signals on both? (I understand that an acceptance signal is normally issued by a back end system via the BSI, therefore requires to modify or develop the back end system for this requirement). In 2.0 you can also define your own patterns which could support this one. Jean-Jacques -----Original Message----- From: yano@jp.fujitsu.com [mailto:yano@jp.fujitsu.com] Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 12:27 AM To: ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [ebxml-bp] Business Transaction definition Folks, Please let me put a question. Can BPSS v2.0 allow a user to define the following Business Transaction valid for 1.01 and 1.05? The points are: - using both receipt and acceptance acknowledgment signals - without response <BusinessTransaction name="BT:Invoice" nameID="bt-invoice"> <RequestingBusinessActivity name="ReqBA:SendInvoice" nameID="reqba-invoice" timeToAcknowledgeReceipt="PT6H" timeToAcknowledgeAcceptance="PT12H"> <DocumentEnvelope name="DE:ProcessInvoice" nameID="de-invoice" businessDocument="BD:ProcessInvoice" businessDocumentIDRef="bd-invoice"/> </RequestingBusinessActivity> <RespondingBusinessActivity name="ResBA:ReceiveInvoice" nameID="resba-invoice"/> </BusinessTransaction> The answer for the question should be "yes". However, it seems that the v2.0 draft schema is saying "no". If the answer is "yes", could anyone show an example of the BPSS 2.0 instance fragment? Thanks, Yano Keisuke
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <ProcessSpecification xmlns="http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebBP/BPS/2.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebBP/BPS/2.0 c:\Schemas\ebBPSS-2_x.xsd" name="PurchasingCluster" nameID="PC23" uuid="urn:purchasingcluster" version="2"> <BusinessDocument name="Invoice" nameID="bd-invoice"> <Specification type="schema" location="http://purchasingcluster.com/Invoice.xsd" name="Invoice" nameID="invoice32"/> </BusinessDocument> <BusinessDocument name="InvoiceResponse" nameID="bd-invoiceResponse"> <Specification type="schema" location="http://purchasingcluster.com/InvoiceResponse.xsd" name="InvoiceResponse" nameID="invoice33"/> </BusinessDocument> <DataExchange name="BT:Invoice" nameID="bt-invoice"> <RequestingBusinessActivity name="ReqBA:SendInvoice" nameID="reqba-invoice" timeToAcknowledgeReceipt="PT6H" timeToAcknowledgeAcceptance="PT12H"> <DocumentEnvelope name="DE:ProcessInvoice" nameID="de-invoice" businessDocumentRef="bd-invoice"/> </RequestingBusinessActivity> <RespondingBusinessActivity name="ResBA:ReceiveInvoice" nameID="resba-invoice"> <DocumentEnvelope name="DE:ProcessInvoiceResponse" nameID="de-invoiceResponse" businessDocumentRef="bd-invoiceResponse"/> </RespondingBusinessActivity> </DataExchange> </ProcessSpecification>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]