Re: Receipt Messages for the demo!!

[Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@vitria.com>]

The POC doc clearly says,

"RosettaNet Demo Scenario The initial proof of concept demonstration scenario involves the execution of RosettaNet PIP3A4 (Create Purchase Order business process) among the participants in the environment.  Specifically, the appropriate RosettaNet action and signal messages as defined in the PIP specification will be transported within the ebXML TR&P framework."

We are executing the entire RN 3A4 business process  within the ebXML TR&P framework.

Please see my comments below tagged PY2.

"Patella, Sanjay" wrote:

> [SP] Let
> me give a simple argument  to make the point clear ...A receiving
> service in Rosettanet makes use of the RN Service Header of the incoming
> message for generating the RN Receipt Acknowledgement.ebXML TR&P just
> does not  understand the RN Service Header,ruling out any real processing
> of the RN Ack payload in ebXML framework.

> <PY2>I am sensing a disconnect here. May be a
> discussion off-line might be worth. Anyhow,
> 1. RN ReceiptAcks are generated after making sure the "payload" is
> structurally valid. Not just by looking at / based on Service Header.
> 2. TR&P does not have access to Service Header and does not need
> to understand it. The Acks are for the RosettaNet entity (Service) that
> sent the original business message. ebXML TR&P is being used as the
> pure package and delivery mechanism, overlaying the *entire* RN-3A4 BP</PY2>

> [SP]
> I understand that this is a subtle issue. Although I see this important,
> if the group does not see any great risk of giving a misleading impression
> (such as ebXML service can be layered on top of RN service) by using Rosettanet
> Ack  for payload,that is fine with me.
<PY2>RN Acks
are business-level Acks. In fact they must include the digest of the received
message for non-repudiation of receipt (when called for!) and they must
only be sent after validating the received business message to be valid
structurally  There is no conflict there</PY2>
> [SP]
> But a simple solution could be to have ebXML Acks without payload or quick
> build simple eBXML Ack payload for demo purpose.

> <PY2>ebXML does not have any Acks defined yet.
> Even when defined, they are supposed to be transport level Acks, where
> as RN Acks are business level Acks. The RN Business process entities should
> be immune to the transport mechnism used.</PY2>

 
"Patil, Sanjay" wrote:

The packaging section of POC proposal document treats the acknowledgement payload as business document instead of treating it as a protocol signal.

<PY>Yes. That is by design. All RosettaNet entities are payload as far as ebXML is concerned. Without the Acks it won't be a RosettaNet PIP.</PY>
[Patil, Sanjay]   Let me get this clear. My understanding was, we are demonstrating  that the ebXML TR&P framework can handle any payload ex. Rosetttanet POR defined by 3A4 or OAG BODs, etc.  To meet this end, we can just borrow business documents fromthe other standards for our demo. By using the signal messages from a particular standard,we are giving an impression that ebXML services can be layered on top of other standard'sservice, since the signal messages are consumed by the particular standard's service.

<PY2> No we are showing the execution of entire 3A4 PIP. Not just 3A4. See the excerpt from the POC proposal I listed at the beginning of this message.
</PY2>

ex. The DocumentLabel field in the ebXML header for Request
Acknowledgement has the value of "Purchase Order Request Acknowledgement".
There is no such document type defined by Rosenttanet.
Rosettanet does not create  custom acknowledgement messages
based on the received message.

<PY>This is not a custom acknowledgment. The label is just a textual description of what is in the ebXML payload. However the TAPId.Action field should have the correct value from PIP3A4, which is simply "Receipt Acknowledgement".</PY>
[Patil, Sanjay]  The  DocumentReference.DocumentLabel should also be "Receipt Acknowledgement" instead of "Purchase Order Request Acknowledgement" or"Purchase Order Acceptance Acknowledgement"

> > <PY2> It makes sense to make the
> > descriptive entities as descriptive as possible. These fields are meant
> > for human consumption (typically)</PY2>
> > > My point is, we are creating confusing scenario
> > > by mixing the
> > > Rosettanet business documents (defined by PIPs) and signal
> > > messages (defined by and scope limited to RNIF).
> > <PY> I don't understand distinction you are trying
> > to make. Both business documents and Acks *are* defined by RosetaNet and
> > are part of the PIP (PIP3A4 in this case). Again without the Acks there
> > is no PIP.</PY>
> > [Patil, Sanjay] 
> > Agree, without the Acks there is no PIP. But Acks message type is notdefined
> > by PIP, but it is just used in a PIP. It's only the business document types
> > which are defined by the PIP and the Ack type is defined by RNIF. Again,
> > this is because RosettanetPIPs are tightly coupled with the Implementation
> > framework.
<PY2> It
does not matter where the schemas for the Acks are defined, when they occur
in the PIP they are part of the PIP. They are business level Acks and are
part of the business process. We *defined* them in the RNIF as that is
a central place to define this. BTW, we did this only in RNIF2.0. For 1.1,
the Acks are not part of RNIF. I hope I know this :-) I wrote RNIF1.1 and
am the lead architect for 2.0 and authored a major portion of it.</PY2>

Instead we can live with just ebXMLHeader and no payload for
acknowledgement messages. This will at least keep the matters clean.

<PY>If you don't need or  handle the Acks, you can simply choose to throw away the payload for the acks. Others need it.</PY>
[Patil, Sanjay]  Acks are useful and ebXML Acks at this point can simply be defined by the header itself. At this point, even if we decide to demonstrate backend integration,I don't understand how one is going to use the the Rosettanet Ack payload.Rosettanet Ack payload is also based upon the Service Header of the the incoming Reosettanet message and ebXML TR&P won't understand that.

Just my thoughts.

thanks,
Sanjay Patil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Work Phone: 408 350 9619
http://www.netfish.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@vitria.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2000 7:13 PM
To: Patil, Sanjay
Cc: Ebxml-Poc (E-mail); Askary, Sid
Subject: Re: Receipt Messages for the demo!!

Sanjay,

This was already discussed. We said, the RN acks would simply be payload as
far
as ebXML is concerned. The  Packaging section of the POC proposal document
also
shows <RN-Action-Message> or <RN-Signal-Message> in the payload. There are
no
ebXML level acks.

Regards, Prasad

"Patil, Sanjay" wrote:

> This is about "Receipt Acknowledgement" messages for the demo.
> Are we planning to use any payload for these messages? Since these
> messages are consumed by the service and not passed to the backend,
> we need to have ebXML specific payload, if any.
>
> I am not sure if TR&P has identified different signal message types
> as acknowledgement, exception and defined types for them.
>
> Of course, we can use RN payload for the demo, but that demonstrates
> no ebXML feature, as the ebXML service is not going to process the receipt
> payload in the receipt messages.
> Instead, maybe we can just use the ebXML header's DocumentLabel field
> to identify the "Receipt Acknowledgement" and not have any payload.
>
> Please ignore this message if this topic has already been discussed and
> decision has been made (I would still need to know the decision though).
>
> thanks,
> Sanjay Patil
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------
> Work Phone: 408 350 9619
> http://www.netfish.com