RE: Document versions for signal and exception documents

["Patil, Sanjay" <SPatil@iona.com>]

+1 on the issue raised by Hima.
In addition, here is a deeper concern I have in this context ...

I always thought that the references to the signal messages (RNIF 
terminology) such as ReceiptAck, NegativeAck, etc in ebXML BPSS is 
solely for identifying these types of messages so that for a business 
process modeler, all these elements are clearly identified.

However, the schema of these messages I perceived as
specific to the messaging protocol under use. Unless all the
messaging protocols are unified globally, I find it
confusing to define the schema for these messages I found
quite confusing.

Can someone shed some light on the rationale behind
standardizing the schema of these messages as part of 
ebXML BPSS??

thanks,
Sanjay Patil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
IONA
Total Business Integration (TM) 
Phone: 408 350 9619                                 http://www.iona.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Himagiri Mukkamala [mailto:himagiri@sybase.com]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 11:08 AM
To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Document versions for signal and exception documents


I'd like to get BPSS implementors input on version of DTDs
being used for ReceiptAcknowledgment, AcceptanceAcknowledgment,
Exception & NOF.

The spec mentions using RNIF 1.1 version of the documents.

There are many fields in PIP0A1FailureNotification DTD that
are very Rosettanet specific. How are implementors handling this?

This may be an interoperability issue but would like some discussion
on this subject so that this could be contributed back to
next revision of specs.

thanks
-hima


----------------------------------------------------------------
The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>