Re: lots of questions RE: new DTD and sample cpa and cpp instance doc s

[christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

Dale,

Please see below.

Chris

"Moberg, Dale" wrote:
> 
> Presumably payload composition descriptions will
> need to be fleshed out in package descriptions,
> using the packaging mechanisms of MIME and XML
> (XML link mechanisms mainly). Or do they
> have something else in mind?
> 
The BP group isn't concerned with MIME (as I understand)
rather, they are simply identifying that a "message"
may be composed of multiple parts. If they could use
a scheme for identifying the parts that meshed with
yours, then we could get to convergence easily.

> Meanwhile, I would be interested in working out
> the non-repudiation-of-receipt, construed as
> an ebXML signal. I have not seen detailed
> signal specifications yet. Do you (Chris) know who
> and how that is being documented?

I don't have any insight into this. Maybe Karsten
could give us an update.

> 
> Dick has sent me a copy of the PGP profile for
> simple signed payload; did you receive that?
> A couple of typos need correction for the
> smime profiles.

No, I never got the attachment, just your forwarding
note.

> 
> Who is working on a placeholder proposal for POC,
> by the way? I will try to do that unless someone
> else has it done; it will reference the profiles
> as appendices to some document (CPP/CPA?) and also
> include Chris's new DTDs for those.

Cool!

> 
> Lots of questions, sorry. Dale

No worries;-)

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 5:12 PM
> > To: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
> > Subject: new DTD and sample cpa and cpp instance docs
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I have attached the latest draft (which will have to do for now
> > so we can get the spec drafted) of the DTD for CPP/CPA along with
> > sample XML cpp and cpa docs.
> >
> > I used a single DTD so that the reuse of elements across the
> > two can remain consistent. In checking with the experts, this
> > is not an uncommon practice (to have a DTD with two or more
> > possible root elements defined).
> >
> > The two root elements are:
> >       CollaborationProtocolProfile
> >       CollaborationProtocolAgreement
> >
> > They share about 90% of the same structure and content. This
> > approach will also assure that the two don't ever get out of
> > synch.
> >
> > Note that at present I have left out a place to plug in Dale's
> > packaging profile. This is because of a discussion I had with
> > Karsten just a few minutes ago. It DEFINITELY needs a place to
> > go, but where (in the CPP/CPA) is yet to be determined.
> >
> > Apparently, the BP team added something only recently which deals
> > with payload composition. I think that there may be some synergy
> > to be had between the BPM and Dale's packaging which I think should
> > be explored before we add the packaging bits into the DTD.
> >
> > Since I haven't seen the BPM changes, can we get a discussion
> > started around this?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Chris
> >
begin:vcard 
n:Ferris;Christopher
tel;cell:508-667-0402
tel;work:781-442-3063
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc;XTC Advanced Development
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:chris.ferris@east.sun.com
title:Sr. Staff Engineer
fn:Christopher Ferris
end:vcard