RE: initial draft of CPP-CPA Specification

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

<Stefano Pogliani>
I think that a discussion on "possible" layering would be more than welcome.
It will be greatly useful in order to understand which part of the specs do
what in a real runtime scenario!

However, about your (Bob) view on the layering
	>
	> My own view is that there will be different protocol layers for
	> (at least):
	> Message Service
	> Business Service Interface
	> Business Transaction
	> Business Collaboration
	> EAI
	> "Internal" business app.
	>

I would consider that the Business Service Interface would include the
"Business Transaction" and "Business Collaboration", i.e. these two would be
an integral part of the BSI.
	Of course, here by BSI I mean the middleware responsible for
	bridging between the MSH and ANY existing legacy application
	and responsible of the execution of the choreography (at least !)
</Stefano Pogliani>

We've had this discussion before.  At least our different positions
are consistent.  Mine is based on the differences in semantics
and guarantees between Business Transaction and Business
Collaboration levels of the BP metamodel.  I mean these as
different logic layers of a protocol stack, but I think there would
be real advantages to ebXML separating them as different
service levels.  I think most early adopters of ebXML will 
just do Business Transactions, that is, at most single
exchanges of request and response documents, and 
then the transaction is complete.  Software support
for Business Collaborations will be more complex
and not required for people who just want to do
simple transactions.

Regards,
Bob Haugen