Re: service bindings

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

Duane,



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

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



duane <duane@xmlglobal.com> on 01/18/2001 07:36:41 PM

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:  Re: service bindings



Sorry I didn't read this before my last post.

Comments inside...

Duane Nickull

Martin W Sachs wrote:
>
> It just dawned on me why <ServiceBinding> should point to
> <CollaborationProtocol> rather than directly to the specification schema
> document.  See the email forwarded below.  A CPP might refer to the same
> specification schema more than once.  For example Sun might have one CPP
in
> which it identifies the same business process in which it may play either
a
> seller or a buyer role.  The best way to do that is to have two
> <CollaborationProtocol> tags pointing to the same specification schema
> document.
WHy not one <CollborationProtocol> element with Two <Role> elements
under it then the appropriate <ServiceBinding> element associated with
each <ROle>?

Does that work?

> Separate <ServiceBinding> tags under <Role> would identify Sun's role in
> each instance of the collaboration protocol (seller in one case and buyer
> in the other case) by pointing to the two instances of
> <CollaborationProtocol>.  Presumably there might also be similar cases
with
> <ServiceBinding> under <DeliveryChannel>.
>>>>

Agreed.

Duane