RE: ebXML TP&R Overview & Requirements Doc diagrams

["Dick Brooks (E)" <dick@8760.com>]

David,

I believe you've captured what people are expecting in terms of a solution
from the ebXML MR&T group. Nicely done.

Only one comment, regarding diagram 5, Repository physical flows of
information, it appears that access to the repository is not part of the
service interface of the messaging system. This is different from what I
recall from our discussions in Orlando. As I recall, it was decided that the
messaging service interface would provide a "service" for accessing the
repository (read & update). This was discussed around the time that John I.
introduced the tpaML spec.

Dick Brooks


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of David
Burdett
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 12:27 AM
To: Nikola Stojanovic
Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
Subject: RE: ebXML TP&R Overview & Requirements Doc diagrams


Nikola

I agree with your comments. I'm copying my reply to the TP&R group since I'd
like the groups comments on the diagrams and attached notes during the
conference call on Wednesday with a view to including them in the
Requirements document.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Nikola Stojanovic [mailto:nstojano@cjds.com]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 11:54 AM
To: David Burdett
Subject: Re: ebXML TP&R Overview & Requirements Doc diagrams


<snip>
As I understand then:

1) We will use TP&R services only to go remotely (via Internet only?). There
is no need for formal (header, doc, signature,...) XML packing between ebXML
components. Internally Systems talk to each other via specified Service
Interfaces ("Program Language independent ..."). There are some ebXML
threads regarding "Syntax neutral" (some call it syntax-free?) notion of
Interfaces and Components. It would be necessary to decide which syntaxes to
use as examples, because there has to be at least one.

2) Integration System (ebXML Gateway, Service Handler) will be the one which
will handle (route, ...) ebXML Service Processing. It will serve the purpose
of a "Facade controller" for the overall ebXML space. It will also serve the
purpose of "Indirection" in order to avoid "Direct Coupling" of Systems
(Components), which will never talk directly to each other, like: Message
System will go via Integration System to Repository System to get needed
Messaging Policies.

I will need to read your docs again to have a better understanding of all
the entities involved.
Nikola



----- Original Message -----
From: "David Burdett" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
To: "Nikola Stojanovic" <nstojano@cjds.com>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 9:20 PM
Subject: RE: ebXML TP&R Overview & Requirements Doc diagrams


> Nikola
>
> I've looked at your diagram and think that there is too much information
on
> it for it to easily make it easy to understand. So I've added a few more
> diagrams to explain a number of different aspects.
>
> Tell me what you think.
>
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nikola Stojanovic [mailto:nstojano@cjds.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 7:22 AM
> To: David Burdett
> Subject: Fw: ebXML TP&R Overview & Requirements Doc diagrams
>
>
> Hi David.
>
> 1) A few more changes (corrections) from me.
>     Message System now talks to:
>         - Another Message System via Internet (or something else?) in
order
> to reach another Party. I guess we don't need local version of this?
>         - Another Message System via Internet (or something else?) in
order
> to reach Repository Server (Repository).
>         - Repository System locally.
>
> 2) I am of the opinion that sometimes smaller group of people can do more
> then a larger one. In XP (Extreme Programming) they have 2 people (2 pair
of
> eyes, ...) working on a task. I thought if you and me can just discuss
this
> version and then, if we agree on it, give it to a one person from each of
> our groups for comments and then present to whole groups? If not in
> agreement or not working together, I assume you'll pass it to your group
and
> I pass it to my group.
>
> Thanks
> Nikola
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nikola Stojanovic" <nstojano@cjds.com>
> To: "David Burdett" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 2:49 PM
> Subject: Re: ebXML TP&R Overview & Requirements Doc diagrams
>
>
> > Hi David.
> > These are just few of mine initial changes. I have informed our group
> about
> > your meeting and what was discussed.
> >
> > Why changes:
> >
> > Assumption #1: Everything is a Service. Not only business services, but
> > technical (infrastructure) as well. That would imply that Registry and
> > Repository (RR) should comply with this design => you can ask RR if it
can
> > Change a Core Component or just Browse Core Components, ... Even Message
> > Systems comply with this => thus Service Interfaces instead of API.
> Message
> > systems' Services could be "Discovered" as well.
> >
> > Implication #1: Everything talks uniformly via Message Systems. I guess
> > language is XML.
> >
> > Assumption #2: RR could be available both Locally and Remotely (via
> > Internet, ...).
> >
> > Implication #2: Integration System just talks (is a Broker) between
> > Enterprise and ebXML space. It can also talk to other spaces (we can
hope
> > ebXML will be a meta one so it wouldn't need to) if needed.
> >
> > Assumption #3: Policies are Business Rules.
> >
> > Implication #3: Policies are part of Business Rules. As such they could
> also
> > be Local or Distributed.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Nikola
> >
>
>
>