Web services for Enterprise Collaboration

226
-1

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
226
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Web services for Enterprise Collaboration

  1. 1. Web services for Enterprise Collaboration Applying MDA to web services for enterprise collaboration Doc Mars/2002-04-10 Doc webserv/2002-04-06 WSDL/Soap ECA WSEC
  2. 2. Quick Overview <ul><li>WSDL provides the mechanism for specifying web services and endpoints </li></ul><ul><li>The Enterprise Collaboration Architecture adopted in EDOC provides a modeling framework for collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Providing an ECA<>WSDL mapping in the RFP enhances both technologies using MDA </li></ul>
  3. 3. Using MDA for WS WSDL & Soap Mapping “ PIM” “ PSM” Business Focused ECA Model
  4. 4. Collaboration is Key <ul><li>Collaboration & integration is a key differentiation and key cost center for the enterprise (Healthcare Example) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Customer Collaboration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Claim processing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Disputes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Physician Collaboration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Payer Collaboration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hospital Collaboration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Broker Collaboration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Government Collaboration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Employee Collaboration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Others... </li></ul></ul>The system integrates multiple collaborations
  5. 5. EDOC – Enterprise Collaboration Architecture Provides a standard UML “PIM” profile suitable for enterprise application of web services
  6. 6. ECA Community Process <ul><li>The “community process”, the roles and interactions in a collaboration </li></ul>Protocol WSDL
  7. 7. ECA Protocols WSDL Port Type
  8. 8. ECA as the normal form EDOC-ECA Web Services (WSDL) ebXML (BPSS) J2EE (Java RMI) Corba MOM (MQ-Series) The standard way to model and tool for multiple technologies MDA Mappings
  9. 9. The RFP Web Services for Enterprise Collaboration WSEC
  10. 10. Solicits proposals for <ul><li>A Mapping from EDOC-Enterprise Collaboration Architecture to WSDL 1.1 with attachments and a SOAP binding. </li></ul><ul><li>A Mapping from WSDL 1.1 with a Soap binding to the EDOC-Enterprise Collaboration Architecture. </li></ul><ul><li>Any required extensions to the EDOC-Enterprise Collaboration Architecture to represent WSDL semantics. </li></ul>
  11. 11. Requirements <ul><li>Submissions shall specify complete mapping rules enabling translation of the applicable features of an ECA specification to a valid set of WSDL service definitions. </li></ul><ul><li>Submissions shall specify which version(s) WSDL, Schema and EDOC they support. </li></ul><ul><li>Submissions shall specify complete and isomorphic mapping rules enabling translation of all of the features of a valid WSDL specification to an ECA specification. </li></ul><ul><li>Submissions shall specify all extensions to ECA required to fully represent WSDL semantics. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Optional Requirements <ul><li>As this is the first ECA mapping RFP, Submissions may require and provide enhanced mechanisms or methodologies for augmenting ECA specifications with mapping parameters and technology specific semantics. </li></ul>
  13. 13. Issues to be discussed <ul><li>Proposals shall include information relative to future support for evolving WSDL “flow” languages. </li></ul><ul><li>Proposals may discuss how their solution may augment or be integrated with other standards activities such as ebXML or JCP-159. </li></ul>
  14. 14. Evaluation Criteria <ul><li>Independence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ability for a WSDL domain to inter-work without each having prior knowledge of the other's implementation. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Completeness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Preservation of content and semantics between transformations. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Ease of use </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The solution should, to the greatest extent possible, be easy to use and understand. </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Business Case <ul><li>· High level support for understanding and documenting collaborative business processes. </li></ul><ul><li>· Loose coupling between independent parties in a collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>· Tighter coupling in the software development life-cycle between design and implementation processes and artifacts. </li></ul><ul><li>· Consistency in the way WSDL is used to implement collaboration. </li></ul><ul><li>· A standard way to use UML for web services. </li></ul><ul><li>· Enhanced support for asynchronous interactions. </li></ul><ul><li>· Automation of the development process from design to implementation. </li></ul><ul><li>· A faster, more deterministic development processes. </li></ul><ul><li>· Ability to adapt to changing business requirements. </li></ul><ul><li>· Ability to adapt to multiple and changing infrastructure technologies. </li></ul><ul><li>· Full life-cycle tool support </li></ul>
  16. 16. Points <ul><li>Scope </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This is a small and very focused RFP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It maps between two existing specifications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Easy - there are no known “large issues” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proprietary implementations already exist </li></ul></ul><ul><li>High value </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides real user advantage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>How the enterprise can utilize web services </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>How UML based tools can facilitate web services </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Realizes MDA for a hot technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Establishes OMG in the “Enterprise” web services space </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. What next <ul><li>Assess acceptance of issuing such an RFP </li></ul><ul><li>Identify key players to refine and sponsor the RFP </li></ul><ul><li>Issue in Orlando? </li></ul>
  18. 18. Issues <ul><li>Schema type system extension limitts </li></ul><ul><li>Abstract vs bound binding </li></ul><ul><li>More specific schema reference </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Should comments for added semantics be normative? </li></ul>
  19. 19. Does ECA map well to WSDL? An approach to the mapping
  20. 20. ECA/WSDL mapping <ul><li>ECA works well as a modeling framework for WSDL </li></ul><ul><li>How major concepts could map </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WSDL Port <-> ECA Port </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WSDL Operation <-> ECA Flow port (one way) or Operation (Two way) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WSDL Service <-> ECA Component </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WSDL Port type <-> ECA Protocol </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WSDL Message <-> ECA Document type </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. WSDL/ECA Differences <ul><li>WSDL Adds </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology binding and endpoints </li></ul></ul><ul><li>ECA adds </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Choreography, nested conversations, two-way protocols, nested components. </li></ul></ul>

×