Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Web services for Enterprise Collaboration


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

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>