RE: Volunteers required for standards mapping

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

Yes, at a minimum, the CPP would need to specify what messaging
architecture or architectures the party is capable of using.  The CPA would
have to specify which messaging architecture is in use for this pair of
parties.  At a minimum, the CPP/CPA will need, in the document-exchange
section, a single tag identifying the messaging architecture, such as
<MessageService>ebXML-msh</MessageService>.  Subelements might also be
needed depending on the characteristics of the particular messaging
architecture.

There will also be a question of whether a messaging architecture or the
combination of a messaging architecture and application-level process is
being identified.  For example, SOAP is a messaging architecture but I
think of RosettaNet as an application process (or set of processes) that
has its own messaging architecture.

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



Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com> on 11/17/2000 01:13:10 PM

Please respond to stefano.pogliani@sun.com

To:   "ebXML Transport (E-mail)" <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
cc:
Subject:  RE: Volunteers required for standards mapping



I agree with Dale.
In other efforts the distinction we made between TR&P and TPA may not be
present, so we need to address the global space of TR&P and TPA, IMHO

/Stefano

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moberg, Dale [mailto:Dale_Moberg@stercomm.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 3:29 PM
> To: 'Burdett, David'; ebXML Transport (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Volunteers required for standards mapping
>
>
> David,
>
> I would hope that the standards comparison here could be
> made relevant to the CPP and CPA specification effort.
> We certainly want to be able to accomodate
> other standards within the CPP capabilities lists
> of the CPP.
>
> Dale Moberg
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 9:26 PM
> > To: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
> > Subject: Volunteers required for standards mapping
> >
> >
> > In the conference call this morning it was agreed that it
> > would be a good
> > idea to start comparing the current version of the spec (0.8)
> > with other
> > similar standards to identify the "gaps". The initial
> > shortlist of standards
> > were:
> > *     BizTalk version 2.0
> > *     RosettaNet Implementation Framework (RNIF) version 2.0
> >
> > Do we need to compare any others?
> >
> > Comparison involves reviewing these standards headers and:
> > *     mapping the header elements to ebXML version 0.8
> > *     identifying data or elements that are missing and,
> > *     making a provisional recommendation on whether or not additional
> > data or changes should be made to ebXML
> >
> > Now for the hard part !!
> >
> > To do the comparison effectively needs someone who knows the
> > standard well.
> > I am volunteering to do BizTalk, so that means we need a
> > volunteer for RNIF
> > 2.0.
> >
> > If you think that some other standard needs to be compared
> > then please be
> > prepared to volunteer yourself to do the comparison or
> > volunteer someone
> > else ;)
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > David
> >
> > Product Management, CommerceOne
> > 4400 Rosewood Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588, USA
> > Tel: +1 (925) 520 4422 (also voicemail); Pager: +1 (888) 936 9599
> > mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com; Web: http://www.commerceone.com
> >
>