Subject: RE: ebXML development dependencies and TPAs
FYI ************************************************************************************* 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 ************************************************************************************* ---------------------- Forwarded by Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM on 09/06/2000 01:55 PM --------------------------- john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com on 09/06/2000 05:48:57 AM To: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org cc: Subject: RE: ebXML development dependencies and TPAs I agree that doing both in parallel is the best plan. Both teams can then test the assumptions made by the other. For now, the TPA representation in UML will be the best appoach since it allows us to concentrate on the contents of a TPA rather than get bogged down in religious debates on XML syntax. Once the model is agreed then an XML rendering is trivial. John MQSeries Technical Strategy & Planning, IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, Winchester, SO21 2JN Tel: +44 (0)1962 815188 Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898 Notes Id: John Ibbotson/UK/IBM email: john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com richard drummond <rvd2@worldnet.att.net> on 09/06/2000 02:31:27 AM Please respond to richard drummond <rvd2@worldnet.att.net> To: cc: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org (bcc: John Ibbotson/UK/IBM) Subject: RE: ebXML development dependencies and TPAs my take would be to do them in parallel, by having marty and scott list the parameters they think each team needs in the tpa. that way we can easily determine where the over lap is... how about that for a solution? rik -----Original Message----- From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 8:11 PM To: 'Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM' Cc: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org Subject: RE: ebXML development dependencies and TPAs I agree as long as we recognize that there may be significant re-work. It's all really a question of balance. You want to make progress, but you don't want to have to re-do work because of other dependencies. David -----Original Message----- From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 3:44 PM To: Burdett, David Cc: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org Subject: Re: ebXML development dependencies and TPAs David, On the other hand, thinking about what goes in the TPA may provide insight as to what belongs in the messaging service specification and its upper and lower interfaces. Doing the messaging service and TPA in parallel should provide useful feedback between the two teams. 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 **************************************************************************** ********* "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 09/05/2000 06:13:34 PM To: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org cc: Subject: ebXML development dependencies and TPAs Scott/Marty I'm not sure of the benefit of developing tpaUML now as I think it is too soon and will need to change because of dependencies on other work we do. My take on thes dependencies are as follows ... 1. Two parties need to know information about each another before they can carry out ecommerce. 2. The information they need to know is, at least partly, dependent on the specifications that ebXML is developing especially for TRP and BP. 3. The information contained in the TPA is dependent on the information that needs to be shared. So I conclude that we can't define what goes in a TPA until we have gone much further in defining our specs. Does this argument make sense? Am I missing something? If my argument makes sense we should focus on our ebXML specs first since it is the first dependency. David -----Original Message----- From: Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM [mailto:srh@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 11:52 AM To: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org Subject: Re: representation of interfaces to the messaging service Now that this is going to happen in UML, beware that we are beginning work in the BP team to integrate *tpaUML* (the UML rendering for tpaML) with the BP UML MetaModel. TPA spans both MS and BP, and the MS UML effort must address TPA in the model. The tpaUML submission is available upon request (since the internal web pages are apparently hosed). The submission package is 2.5 MB, and does not require Rational Rose to view it. Thanks, Scott Hinkelman Senior Software Engineer, IBM Austin Emerging Technologies, SWG 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519) srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074 Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org> on 08/30/2000 01:25:08 PM To: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org cc: Subject: Re: representation of interfaces to the messaging service Gordon, Yes, I remember you volunteered for a strawman UML service interface. I'm 100% for it. Henry ------------------------------------- At 08:47 AM 08/30/2000 -0700, Gordon van Huizen wrote: >Hi Henry, > >The current plan is to develop the service interface in UML. I'm hoping >to provide a strawman service interface at the Dallas face-to-face, >unless tomorrow's con call results in a revised plan or orientation for >developing the interface portion of the spec. > >The discussions regarding layering are useful, though, toward the goal >of a cleanly defined interface with well understood factoring of the >service interface and transport issues. > >-gvh- > >Henry Lowe wrote: >> >> Marty, >> >> As a former OSI type, this is the sort of think I was thinking >> of when I mentioned the use of a conceptual interface (I/F). >> However, >> 1. you need to add parameters to the primitives (afraid I'd have >> to look at an old document to see exactly how we used to do it, >> and >> 2. this notation only deals with events which involved a protocol >> exchange, i.e., it doesn't cover (what we used to call "local") >> events which don't cause protocol to be sent or result from >> protocol being received. >> >> Item 2 would have to be dealt with for ebXML, IMHO. It is usable, >> however, and can be extended to cover local events where necessary. >> >> Rather than start using the OSI approach (which after all, has its >> origins in the late 1970's), I would support your second suggestion >> of using UML as it's richer (and also being used by the BP folk as >> I understand). >> >> Best regards, >> Henry >> ------------------------------------------ >> At 10:21 AM 08/30/2000 -0400, mwsachs@us.ibm.com wrote: >> >There is an inter-layer interface representation that some standards use, >> >which I have seen referred to as the OSI interface model. It is considered >> >to be technology and implementation independent and definitely won't be >> >confused with an API. It is expressed in natural language. >> > >> >Consider a 2-layer structure, TOP and BOTTOM. The conceptual interface >> >between the TOP and BOTTOM is expressed in terms of four primitives: >> > >> > Request: TOP makes a request to BOTTOM for a specified service. >> > Indication: BOTTOM sends a particular signal to TOP >> > Response: TOP sends the results of the previous Indication to BOTTOM. >> > Confirm: BOTTOM conveys the results of one or more service requests to >> > TOP. >> > >> >The specific request, etc. and the name of the "sending" level are >> >concatenated to the primitive name thus: TOP_Data.Request. >> > >> >Text associated with the primitive specifies the characteristics of the >> >primitive, such as when generated, effect on receipt, and status. >> > >> >Associated with naming the primitive is a brief description of the >> >semantics (typically one sentence). >> > >> >Examples of this are in the ANSI Fibre Channel Physical and Signaling >> >Interface specification which I unfortunately have only on paper. >> > >> >I mention this only to add to the spectrum of choice. It is highly likely >> >that the BP-TRP interface will have to be in UML to mesh with the BP meta >> >model. This OSI interface representation is not anywhere as rich as UML but >> >it is a compact easily understood representation. If we use a UML model, >> >we will certainly have to add the same kind of explanatory text. >> > >> >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 >> > **************************************************************************** >> >********* >> > >> >
Powered by
eList eXpress LLC