Re: CPA composition from multi-role CPPs

[Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

Further Comments embedded:

Duane Nickull wrote:

> The most efficient path to take is a general assumption that the
> receiving end cannot do data transformations (unless there is a mechnism
> for an explicit statement of such in the CPP they post?).  This makes it
> easier for the sending side to be certain that their business process
> will succeed (or fail).   There is a great unknown variable on the type
> s of incoming data so it would be extremely difficult for a receiving
> company to state whether or not they can automatically (or manually)
> convert all data types that are sent to them.  It was felt that more
> than likely,  a receiving company making statements would at best be
> able to cover only a very minute amount of possible transformation
> possibilities, therefore this mechanism of stating capabilities is
> likely to be incomplete and result in a lot of missed business
> opportunities.
>>>>>>>

One addition possibility is multiple acceptance of data terms.  In other
words,  the Business Process could be declared as such:

<StepOne>
  <Action type="transmit" Role="InvoiceSubmitter">
    <AcceptableDocument uri="http://somehwere.com/docs/xCBL30.dtd">xCBL
3.0 Invoice</AcceptableDocument>
    <AcceptableDocument uri="http://somehwere.com/docs/cXML11.dtd">cXML
1.1 Invoice</AcceptableDocument>
    <AcceptableDocument uri="http://somehwere.com/docs/visa.dtd">Visa
Invoice</AcceptableDocument>
...blah...

  </Action>
</StepOne>

This way a party can explicitly declare exactly what DTD's or Schemas
are acceptable to them.  

Comments?

Duane Nickull