- From: Jon Dart <jdart@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:25:14 -0800
- To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
I'd like to add some comments, and raise some questions, regarding Jean-Jacques Dubray's paper (http://www.ebpml.org/ebpml2.2.doc), which was discussed a bit in an earlier thread. If I can attempt a summary: Dubray's paper advocates separating message flow, data flow, and control flow definitions. This provides a separation of layers, without precluding the ability to model both interior and exterior flows. The control flow model is "pluggable", so that in fact the same framework could support different kinds of control flow modelling - the examples use BPSS, but this isn't required. A few comments: Generally, this seems to be an interesting and valuable approach. It leverages some of the work that has gone into ebXML, which is one of the more sophisticated B2B frameworks. The paper envisions that business transactions could involve an exchange of multiple messages, that these could be asynchronous, and that correlation between messages may therefore be necessary. I think these are necessary features to support, but the examples don't really demonstrate how to support them, as far as I can tell. Transactions are also identified as being out of scope (p. 15). The DataFlow example (p. 15) seems to me overly simple. It shows data inputs and outputs connected by XSLT transformations. This is useful, but it's only one example of what could be a complex transformation, possibly involving iteration and other workflow concepts. This being the case, is it useful to distinguish a data flow from a control flow? (The diagram on p. 15 actually confuses the two, because there's a comment indicating that a "Control flow" is starting, but the tag that begins it is called "DataFlow", although its end tag is "ControlFlow"). It would be interesting to see in more detail whether, and how, something like BPEL4WS could be fit into this framework - I understand that they're fundamentally different approaches, but to the extent that they're attacking the same problem, it ought to be possible to take a BPEL4WS model and re-express its essentials in this framework. There is mention at the end of the paper of three planned followup papers - are any of these available? --Jon
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 18:29:36 UTC