[ubl-dev] RE: [ebxml-dev] Re: [ubl-dev] UBL payload andclient-server int

["Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk>]

Correction:
I meant instead of "don't have much more than cable modem..."
"don't have more than ADSL modem" :-)


>>> "Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk> 14/11/06 10:42:15 >>>
Another consideration the article doesn't mention so much
is situations where bandwidth may still be a limiting factor -
such as when a large number of people use WiMax in a
particular area or the fact that much of the world still
doesn't have more than cable modem internet access.
Others still don't have TCP. So here there might be a good
application with websites such as those with interactive
maps.

Steve

>>> "Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk> 14/11/06 10:15:15 >>>
Thanks Pim for pointing to this excellent article.

I guess there may be problems with implementation though
- hence a request for any interesting notes about anyone's
experience with this. For example:
1. How do firewalls cope with the binary rather than the XML text?
2. To quote the article 

"Fast has to work well with existing Web Services standards and APIs so that there is minimal impact on the developers. A developer should not have to maintain two code bases with different APIs for the same Web Service, nor should (s)he have to define two different Web Service contracts for any particular service. Ideally, a developer should be able, at the flick of a switch, to specify: "I want my service to go Faster when talking to Fast-enabled peers."

- how does use of ebXML fare with this? Would it not be necessary to have a
different CPA for 'Fast'? Hence that might make the 'just flick a switch' ideal
a bit of a challenge.

Of course it's just early days in standards terms and in terms of
tools support such as in Java, by the looks of things.

Many thanks

Stephen Green


>>> "Pim van der Eijk" <pim.vandereijk@oasis-open.org> 13/11/06 18:00:05 >>>
 

Hello Stephen,

There is some related work called "Fast Web Services":
http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/WebServices/fastWS/ 

This seems compatible without any special effort with ebMS 2 and 3 when used
to encode attachments stored as MIME parts with a special
"application/fastinfoset" MIME type. Packaging information in the CPA can
reference this too. 

A more drastic approach would be to encode the ebXML SOAP envelope in this
binary format. In ebMS3 an application payload can be in a SOAP body, so the
UBL payload stored as subelement of the SOAP envelope would be in this
compact format too.  This would probably require some changes to some core
parts of the ebXML Messaging version 3 spec, but nothing essential.  

In ebXML, we would not need the "optimistic"/"pessimistic" HTTP Accept-based
negotiation mentioned in
http://java.sun.com/webservices/docs/1.6/jaxrpc/fastinfoset/manual.html as
the partner-agreed result of negotiation could be in set in the CPA. 

The main benefits of compact formats are support for environments where
bandwidth is scarce or expensive, such as mobile environments, or where very
large XML messages are exchanged. For UBL, I'm not sure either of these
conditions apply.

Pim van der Eijk
 
Register for OASIS Adoption Forum 2006: Enabling Efficiency between
Government, Business and the Citizen
27-29 Nov 2006, London
www.oasis-open.org/events/adoptionforum2006/ 


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Green [mailto:stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk] 
Sent: 13 November 2006 15:28
To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org; ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org 
Subject: [ebxml-dev] Re: [ubl-dev] UBL payload and client-server integration
tools

Chee-Kai / Fulton,

Thanks for opening up the view of the possible applications for the use of
binary parallels to XML here. We could view the XML and the XML Schema (XSD)
as the theory (essential as such) and the binary as the practical. Another
analogy might be to view the XML/XSD as the score and the binary as the
audible music but the binary 'sings' not to the score but to an adaptation
of the score by its use of the ASN.1 equivalent of the XSD.

So we need to have the practice of composing the score, then having it
adapted, then reading the adaptation and turning it into music; in other
words, architecting the schemas in XML Schema, turning those into ASN.1 (as
UBL does) and using the
ASN.1 optionally to determine the content of binary messages (for various
reasons such as interoperability improved compres- sion). Making this
'standard practice' seems to me to offer the optimal (by current state of
art) solution for messages, whether for RIA or for modern equivalents to the
traditional uses of EDI or to whatever is just around the corner. It's
looking good.

It seems to closely parallel the standard practises of coding software quite
nicely so it should be very easy for developers and information architects
to understand. First the text, then the compilation to binary. Here we have
first the message composition and the message equivalent of the source code
which is kept for posterity and maintenance, then we have the binary
equivalent which is actually used at runtime.

All the best

Stephen Green


>>> Chin Chee-Kai <cheekai@SoftML.Net> 13/11/06 05:25:55 >>>
At 06:58 PM 2006-11-09 -0500, Fulton Wilcox wrote:
>Stephan et al:
>
>What are the implications of fairing UBL into RIA architectures?
>.....
>The second is to consider use of RIA techniques within the more typical 
>eBusiness server-to-server exchange of transactions. RIA calls are 
>built for speed and light touch on bandwidth, so the fit would be to 
>highly repetitive transactions - e.g., price checks, inventory 
>availability checks, transportation scheduling, etc.
>                                        Fulton Wilcox
>                                        Colts Neck Solutions lLC

Very interesting thoughts about RIA & the "built for speed and light touch"
stuff.  I'm much delighted to hear about this conversation.
I don't know much about RIA stuff, but do think the "speed and light touch"
aspect is interesting to explore for UBL.

 From UBL instances' perspective, this could either be viewed or translated
as (A) an encoding problem, or (B) a translation problem.

One could use specifications from binary XML to do (A) with significant
reduction in textual bytes in the instance payload.  But I suspect RIA is
going for the really highly interactive sort of communication environment
and might need a more rudimentary (B) solution.  In a way, while UBL TC
produces schemas as normative output, there's no limitation that the
instances cannot be mapped and stored in another manner.

One quick thought that comes to mind is to assign a UBL-wide unique ID to
each and every BBIE, ABIE and ASBIE, using possibly a 16-bit word and values
being assigned authoritatively only through/by UBL TC.
Structural composition of the BIEs could be easily done through usual
header/trailer byte style, or header-fixed-length packets.



Best Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
SoftML
Tel: +65-6820-2979
Fax: +65-6820-2979
Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net 
http://SoftML.Net/ 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: st-server integration
toolsubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org 
For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org 





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org 
For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org