- From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 21:45:31 -0800
- To: "'Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)'" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>, "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
- Cc: "Probert, Sue" <Sue.Probert@commerceone.com>
- Message-ID: <C1E0143CD365A445A4417083BF6F42CC053D1449@C1plenaexm07.commerceone.com>
Roger You asked the question ..." Is it just the ability to define a sequence of messages?" No its not, it's actually a lot more ... To really meet the needs of EDI you need to be able to standardize three things: 1. The choreography - i.e. the sequence of exchanging messages between partners - as described below and discussed on this list. 2. The messages - i.e. the business document(s) - note the plural, there can sometimes be more than one document in a message. The documents can also be XML as well as non-XML 3. The "operations" for a service - i.e. you have a standard operation that you use whenever you want to make a hotel booking, for example. Messages The second item, on messages, requires further discussion as you will NEVER get a single definition for a message that can apply universally. For example, Invoices in Europe require a VAT reference number and amount whereas in the US they would have a Sales tax instead. Another variation, would be that a hotel invoice, could have details about the dates of stay, hotel used, etc in the individual line items which would not apply to other types of invoices. This means that there will be many, potentially thousands of different definitions of a business document such as an Invoice, where each one could have a different XML namespace. You also need to remember that many of the messages will contain multiple documents in separate parts. For example, if you placed an order for some goods, you might attach a document that contained a specification of the goods. This could be, plain text a MS Word document, a CAD/CAM drawing, etc. The OASIS UBL initiative which is doing a lot of work on handling this type of problem which they describe as applying a "business context" to a document - see http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/> for more details. Message Families A useful way handling this variability is to group "similar" business documents that serve the same business purpose into what I would call "Document Families", and similarly group similar messages into Message Families. The idea is that all the documents in a document family or the messages in a message family are used for the same purpose, e.g. for all the business documents in the Invoice document or message family would be used by the seller to request a payment from the buyer. This means that, in order to meet the needs of EDI, Choreographies (or what David O called Choreography Templates) MUST be defined in terms of Message or Document Families - otherwise you will need thousands of choreographies to handle all the different variations of a document/message which just won't work. Standardizing Operations The variation in business documents/ families also means that the same service MUST be able to accept multiple different documents/messages belonging to the same Message or Document family - otherwise you will need thousands of services/operations to support all the variations of an invoice, for example that you could get. The reason for standardizing service operations is the same as for standardizing choreographies. If every hotel, for example, had a different operation or a different service, then you would still have to do some application programming before you could exchange messages with it. I accept that this goes against the current thinking for WSDL. Bottom Line The current focus of Web Services is on simple interactions where you are integrating to a single service that accepts a single type of message/document. This is an absolutely valid use case which we MUST continue to support. However it is not enough to meet the needs of EDI. David -----Original Message----- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com] Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 11:31 AM To: 'Burdett, David'; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); 'David Orchard'; www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: Stop the ... -> Usage Cases This is great stuff. Is it possible to be more specific about what portion of a choreography standard would be required in this use case to enable these cost savings? Is it just the ability to define a sequence of messages? That would seem to me to require only a rather simple spec, wouldn't it? -----Original Message----- From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 3:12 PM To: 'Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)'; 'David Orchard'; www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: Stop the ... -> Usage Cases Roger You asked the question ... >>>... are there cost savings to the travel agent involved with communicating an expected sequence of messages with, say, a hotel in a standardized way? <<< I think there are as: 1. The travel agent will have to write an application that understands the sequence of messages. 2. There are probably millions of hotels out there. 3. If hotels around the world use different sequence of messages, then, if the travel agent wants to exchange electronic messages with them they will need to adapt their application to each one of them. 4. If there are to many different sequences, then the cost of integration will be so high that it stop widespread adoption. Let's also think of this from a financial perspective. CASE 1 - Little or no standardization 1. It takes 2 person days of effort to build, adapt, test and deploy a solution that follows a new sequence of messages for communicating with a hotel. Cost, $1,000, say 2. There are just 500 different ways of communicating with a hotel - this assumes there has been some standardization 3. Cost of building adapters to support all hotels = 500 x $1,000 = $500,000 CASE 2 - with standardization 1. As above, but now there are just 5 ways of communicating with a hotel 2. Cost is now 5 x $1,000 or $5,000 Given this difference in costs, my best on the actual business outcome is as follows: 1. If there is little or no standardization, then all interactions with hotels will HAVE to go through a broker or hotel agent system that understands all the protocols and can map them to just that the travel agent needs to support. This is effectively standardization by the back door, but still requires a broker in the middle who provides a service, presumably for a fee which would probably be charged to the hotel but would be reflected in higher room rates. 2. If there is standardization, then the travel agent can economically communicate directly with each hotel. As new hotels add the capability and they are discovered (e.g. through UDDI), then the agent can interact with them at next to no additional cost. So, in a sense Roger, standardized interactions are not **required**, but they sure do reduce the cost of implementation. Hope this helps. David PS Apologies for the delays in participating on this thread as my emails were being rejected and then, once they were accepted, I was out of town. -----Original Message----- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:20 PM To: 'David Orchard'; www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: Stop the ... -> Usage Cases I don't think scuttling the travel case is a good idea. I'm not trying to subtract content but to add, or at least to ask for addition. The travel use case obviously illustrates sequences of messages. What I am pointing out is the lack of a use case where the business value of transmitting the choreography from one player to another is made clear. I'm beginning to think that there might be some business value hidden in the travel case, but I have not seen it described clearly. If it were, I think it would help focus what is important in the spec. For example, are there cost savings to the travel agent involved with communicating an expected sequence of messages with, say, a hotel in a standardized way? Not the whole logic ot the thing, just the part that involves the hotel. If there is I don't quite see it, but I think there might be. It seems to me, however, that there are probably other use cases that show this kind of thing better, perhaps involving companies that sell the same thing to a lot of other companies. The travel use case suffers here, I think, because it sells the same thing to a lot of people, and the thrust of web services is machine<->machine, not machine<->person. Unfortunately I am not in the kind of business setting that gives me personal knowledge of this sort of interaction. I think to some extent we are talking at cross purposes here. If the generic example you mention is the one I think it is, it certainly illustrates the primary message patterns but is utterly silent about the business value of standardization. -----Original Message----- From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:36 PM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: Stop the ... -> Usage Cases I just posted another message on why I think travel is a good example, and why the generic scenario I came up with covers the main issues. At this point, if the travel example isn't working, then let's just delete the whole scenario from our documents and minds. I'm not seeing much or any support for what I've tried to do with adopting one scenario based upon the one we have. Though I'm baffled. Travel was one of the first things that programmatic interfaces were put onto, it's been used in a whole bunch of different choreography specs, and it absolutely is being used for web services today. Cheers, Dave -----Original Message----- From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 8:50 PM To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); 'David Orchard' Cc: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org' Subject: RE: Stop the ... -> Usage Cases Rogedr said ... I'm almost certainly oversimplifying, but it seemed to me that the picture emrging was one where the public, message driven parts were carrying most of the business value of standardization, and the much more complex, process-involved aspects, particularly of BPEL, were shaking out as more relevant to implementation, not standardization. ... I agree completely David PS Zahid and I have been unable to make posts for the last few days which Hugo and Gerald at the W3C have now fixed. This is why we have been so quiet recently ;) -----Original Message----- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [ mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com <mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com> ] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 9:33 AM To: 'David Orchard' Cc: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org' Subject: RE: Stop the ... -> Usage Cases Although I mostly agree with what you are saying, I think it is unfortunate if we are totally focussing for choreography on the Travel Agency Use Case because I think that the business drivers for standardizing choreography in that one are rather weak. It seemed to me that some discussion WAY, WAY back in the torrent of email was surfacing some usaqe cases where the business drivers are much clearer. For example, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/0240.html <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/0240.html> -- which I happen to be able to find easily, but there were also several others. It seems to me that if you can see the business drivers clearly that helps to winnow the higher value portions of the problem. For example, I believe that the comparisons of public/private, choreography/orchestration and message definition/executable (that one is not quite right, I know) were moving usefully in that direction. I have no desire to debate whether the choreography task needs to be done, I am just suggesting a business driver approach to high-grading aspects of it. I'm almost certainly oversimplifying, but it seemed to me that the picture emrging was one where the public, message driven parts were carrying most of the business value of standardization, and the much more complex, process-involved aspects, particularly of BPEL, were shaking out as more relevant to implementation, not standardization. -----Original Message----- From: David Orchard [ mailto:dorchard@bea.com <mailto:dorchard@bea.com> ] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:29 PM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: Stop the Choreography Definition insanity! I've been buried in the gajillion emails about choregraphy; heard proponents of bpss, wscl, wsci, bpel4ws, and the expected "we don't need no stinking yet another ws-* spec" speak up. This is impossible for a reasonable person to follow, and certainly for our soon to be bewildered AC reps. I have a # of proposals to help refine the process. 1. No more "imagine application x. Message flows blah blah blah" messages. I simply can't keep up with the restaurant ordering, POs, travel reservations, etc. Purposefully or accidentally, the myriad of proposals prevents us from getting closure. Let us use ONLY the travel agent usage scenario as defined in the *gasp* W3C Web Services Usage Scenarios and Use Cases document. And if it needs additional steps/conditions added, then suggest specific changes to the scenario. 2. We need actual discussion of REQUIREMENTS, with proposed suggestions. For example, I might have requirements: 1. Order of operations MUST be expressible. 2. Dependent Operations MAY be shown in public choreography. 3. Conditions MAY be exposable. Therefore, I get something like .. foo .. 3. Use reasonable subject lines. I suggest using the requirement (s). For example, if you don't believe in ordering of operations, then the subject should reflect such. Or dependent operations. Or whatever, just not "choreography definition". 4. Get real. To be blunt, if this group decides that it wants to re-invent choregraphy languages from ground up with n inputs, it will be a total waste of time. Simply put, a number of companies are not prepared to go through the reinvent the wheel exercise again. I can state for the record that BEA Systems isn't interested in that. Perhaps it's too much to ask of a standards body, in such a short time, but we need to get to closure pretty darned fast, and political realities have to reflect that. And we're going to have to find some way of dealing with the fact that some companies and people - some of whom aren't w3c member companies - don't want choreography done at the w3c at all, so not getting timely closure is a victory. I have every confidence that if choreography isn't standardized at the W3C, it will happen somewhere else, with commensurately different IPR conditions, process and influence over the result. And BEA Systems also believes that only 1 choreography standard will survive. Cheers, Dave
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 00:45:21 UTC