Title: Message

What I am concerned about is not the technical-event linking, but more the semantic linking of the business drivers.

Current BPSS does not have any method for linking the definition-of-business-event-having-occurred. It is critical that BPSS transitions occur immediately once a business action is complete, since the owner of the event beginning the next transaction almost always rests with the originating-party of the next transaction.

What I want to put in the beginsWhen is "name='product-is-delivered', expression='exists(delivered-date) and exists(delivery-signature)'". This is so there can be a discrete linkage of the business semantic to the process execution.

This fits well with David's idea of named context, but also can easily be expressed using the same syntax as the transition guards.

The key benefit here is the ability to associate/link a BPSS sematic node with both 1) its implementation and 2) its role in the business-agreement/contract layer. How that is implemented with respect to a backend system event is not my concern, what is my concern is the semantic-definition that can be USED to implement a backend monitor.

Thanks! John -----Original Message----- From: mart...@bt.com [[1]mailto:mart...@bt.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 8:35 AM To: dav...@drrw.info; Moni...@Sun.COM; ande...@toolsmiths.se; Yunker, John; naga...@fla.fujitsu.com; jean...@Attachmate.com Cc: ebxm...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ebxml-bp] [ebBP] Tell 6/14/2004: Business Contract Requirements for State Alignment

Hi, I know I am not partaking much these days but on this subject I have some views.

beginsWhen and endWhen were effectively comments on the transaction in 1.01 and the CEFACT 1.1. Moving away from this to show some other flow or usage needs to be very, very carefully thought through. I would be unhappy to see that these are used as a back door event based solution. I know that is what they were aimed at originally, it is just that the implications of this are to make the processes more complex.

Martin Roberts xml designer, BT Exact e-mail: mart...@bt.com tel: +44(0) 1473 609785 clickdial fax: +44(0) 1473 609834 Intranet Site :[2]http://twiki.btlabs.bt.co.uk/twiki

-----Original Message----- From: David RR Webber [[3]mailto:dav...@drrw.info] Sent: 15 June 2004 15:29 To: Monica J. Martin; Anders W. Tell; Yunker, John; Kenji Nagahashi; Jean-Jacques Dubray Cc: ebXML BP Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] [ebBP] Tell 6/14/2004: Business Contract Requirements for State Alignment

Monica,

Not wanting to preempt discussion on Friday - but just wanting to throw out some technical ideas.

What if we linked the signals to the begins/endsWhen conditionals on a BT?

Just like with my proposal around linkage to context statements using a nameRefID - we could easily point to a named signal (it has that attribute already) and it would be either then boolean true or false. eg: beginsWhen="#mysignal-Is-On"

This still leaves how the signal itself gets set of course! Seems like Dales post earlier may fit / hint into that category...since the only attribute in the signal right now is the URI - how does one actually turn a signal on?!

If we can crack that "glue" then I believe we can provide what we need here.

Am I also right in thinking that essentially used in this way the signals actually constitute the equivalent of an immediate "break" command so familiar in procedural languages to escape into/out of the current logical block. In our case that is of course a BT.

DW

----- Original Message ----- From: "Monica J. Martin" <Moni...@Sun.COM> To: "Anders W. Tell" <ande...@toolsmiths.se>; "Yunker, John" <yun...@amazon.com>; "Kenji Nagahashi" <naga...@fla.fujitsu.com>; "Jean-Jacques Dubray" <jean...@Attachmate.com> Cc: "ebXML BP" <ebxm...@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 1:53 AM Subject: [ebxml-bp] [ebBP] Tell 6/14/2004: Business Contract Requirements for State Alignment

.

References

Visible links 1. mailto:mart...@bt.com 2. http://twiki.btlabs.bt.co.uk/twiki 3. mailto:dav...@drrw.info