Re: [ebxml-dev] Re: [EDI-L] Announce - Latest Article on ebXML

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

Mike,

Treating the various ebXML specifications separately is fine but don't
imply that they can be used bare.

Here's what you have to do to obey the "separate or together" clause.

   The CPP-CPA specification can be used without the BPSS but to do so, the
   two Parties have to come up with a different formulation of the
   collaboration protocol and agree on how to interpret the elements in the
   CPA that refer to it.  This is spelled out in section 7.5.4 of the
   CPP-CPA spec.

   Similarly, the CPP-CPA can be used with a different messaging protocol
   than the ebXML Message Service.  Doing so requires defining a different
   xxxBinding (e.g. SOAPBinding) to replace the ebXMLBinding element.
   Obviously, the CPA cannot be used without a messaging protocol.

   The MS team goes to great pains to keep the CPA optional.  To do so
   requires manually configuring the two parties' systems with the same
   information that would go in the CPA.

Regards,
Marty


   *************************************************************************************

   Martin W. Sachs
   IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
   P. O. B. 704
   Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
   914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
   Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
   Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
   *************************************************************************************



Mike Rawlins <mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com> on 11/27/2001 03:14:15 PM

Please respond to mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com

To:
cc:    edi-l Yahoo List <EDI-L@yahoogroups.com>, ebxml-dev
       <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>
Subject:    Re: [ebxml-dev] Re: [EDI-L] Announce - Latest Article on ebXML



Marty,

I won't split hairs over the meaning of "integral" so I concede your point.
I would like
to clarify, however, that in my discussions I have considered the CPA/CPP
and BPSS
specifications separately.  As you are aware, the modular nature of the
ebXML
architecture allows one to use CPA/CPP without a BPSS, and vice versa,
allows use of MHS
without CPA/CPP, allows (future) use of other message handling such as XMLP
with CPA/CPP
instead of ebXML MHS, etc.  So, it only makes sense for me to consider them
separately.
If I were to consider BPSS and CPA/CPP together, my estimate would be even
lower for
CPA/CPP due to my lower assessment for the BPSS.

BTW FWIW - I think the original tpaML by itself was a much more workable
concept in the
near term than the combined ebXML CPA/CPP and BPSS.  Less capable to be
sure, but
simplicity has its virtues...

Regards,

Martin W Sachs wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Regarding: "is covered by the BPSS, which is only pointed to by the
CPA/CPP
> and is
> not an integral part of the CPA or the CPP." The CPP and CPA contain what
> amounts to a normative reference to a BPSS instance document. That makes
> the BPSS instance document just as integral a part of the CPP/CPA as the
> element in the CPP/CPA that points to it.  The BPSS instance document has
> the job of defining the choreography of the message exchanges.  Without
it,
> we would have had to invent one to embed in the CPA (or to use the
> choreography that came with tpaML).
>
> Regards,
> Marty
>

--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com



----------------------------------------------------------------
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>