|Subject:||FW: Public Comment|
|From:||Jesmond Abela (jesm...@maltanet.net)|
|Date:||Oct 25, 2004 12:55:38 am|
-----Original Message----- From: Jesmond Abela [mailto:jesm...@maltanet.net] Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 09:31 To: 'Jean-Jacques Dubray' Cc: 'ebxm...@lists.oasis-open.org' Subject: RE: Public Comment
I have been following up articles regarding these topics outlined below, and I had some points I wish to submit:
As I have come to the conclusion from the information and articles you have kindly submitted, ebXML-BP is required to implement the BPM component for the ebXML framework (i.e. attempting to adapt BPEL will not be very successful since this is not intended for multiparty collaborations, but rather orchestration of web services).
I do not wish (and do not have the resources) to implement an ebXML BPSS BPM from scratch, and have been searching for an implementation of such components for integration either as open source or otherwise, but found only very limited support. Given that ebXML-BP v2.0 is imminent, I suppose that it will be even more unlikely to find such implementations.
Alternatively, perhaps an existing BPM/workflow framework (e.g. JBOSS jBPM ) can be used to implement the BPSS engine. Has anybody considered or looked into this matter?
I would greatly appreciate any input on this topic.
-----Original Message----- From: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:jean...@Attachmate.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 20:28 To: jesm...@maltanet.net; ebxm...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: Public Comment
I don't think they are competing though the latest draft of BPEL shows almost 100% commitment to B2B rather than private processes. You may want to double check this statement with the BPEL TC directly.
There are really three levels to the problem, as I see it
Collaboration (OASIS ebBP/BPSS) Choreography (W3C/WS-CDL) Orchestration (OASIS/WS-BEPL)
If you look at trivial examples, all those levels are overlapping. If you look at real-world examples all levels are needed. BPSS and WS-CDL can support very complex interactions while BPEL cannot model very efficiently multiparty collaboration because it is taking the point of view of one side. If what you are trying to model is very basic (2 parties you could go with BPEL).
The BPSS team is working actively to see if layering is possible on top of WS-CDL. We have started to give some feedback to the WS-CDL team as this spec is in draft mode. Basically, WS-CDL and BPEL does not have any business semantics, nor do they care about state alignment. BPSS offers a "business transaction protocol" that supports non-repudiation and state alignment in an interoperable way. You can always do that in WS-CDL and BPEL between two parties, if the two parties agree that a particular message means non-repudiation, or guarantees state alignment. If you don't need either (I'd be surprised if you can live without state alignment) you should probably go with WS-CDL.
If you need to model complex interactions that require business semantics and state alignment, BPSS is your only choice today.
You can find more information on these articles I wrote: http://www.ebpml.org/ebpml.doc
Comment from: jesm...@maltanet.net
I am in the process of analysing the ebXML standard/s for implementing an e-Commerce application. I have a question regarding the ebXML BPSS spec. in relation to the BPEL/BPEL4WS spec., are these competing standards? If yes, what is the position of OASIS since I believe there is a TC on this initiative.
Jesmond Abela e-BusCon Ltd.