Concern with basic ebXML TRP Syntax/Semantics

["Kit (Christopher) Lueder" <kit@mitre.org>]

I have a concern with the basic ebXML TRP approach. As I indicated last
month, as far as I know, the TRP approach is in conflict with the ebXML
Requirements specification. If I understand right, the ebXML TRP
solution is MIME based only, which is not an XML solution.

I quote the last paragraph from Section 1 Introduction of the ebXML
Requirements:
"A key aspect for the success of the ebXML initiative is adherence to
the use of the W3C suite of XML and related Web technical
specifications.  Although these specifications may not provide the
optimal technical solution, acceptance of ebXML by the business
community and technical community is tied to XML.  Alternative
technologies and technical specifications may be incorporated as part of
the ebXML solution.  However these alternative technologies and
specifications will only be provided as an alternative to the provided
XML solution unless the W3C XML and related Web technical specifications
can not accomplish the same business functionality."

Kit.


Todd Boyle wrote:
> 
> I would appreciate any information or links regarding the duplicated
> or overlapping information in multiple layers of headers and wrappers.
> My understanding is that a typical ebXML message might contain
> 
>   HTTP/MIME multipart/related header
>     ebXML header
>     payload1
>       Biztalk, or MSMQ/MQseries etc. header
>       Biztalk, or MSMQ/MQseries etc. header
>          Rosetta, OAG, CBL2, etc. document
>              Rosetta, OAG, CBL2, etc. required document header
>                  The XML message content which would usu. include
>                  all the parties' identities and reference codes
>     payload2
>     payload3   etc.
> 
> No doubt I've got this screwed up someplace.  I imagine for the coming
> 12-24 months MOM or MQ servers will be required no matter what ebXML
> comes up with, and accordingly ebXML header and MOM headers will both
> be transported?
> 
> My real question is, how to eliminate all duplication and if that is
> impossible, will there be a need for applications which navigate
> up and down the layers of headers to ensure they are consistent?
> 
> Todd Boyle
> 
> Christopher Ferris said 4/3
> > IMHO, our role should be to provide the content for the semantic
> > meaning of the elements we include in the header, etc. as well as
> > any information related to semantic equivalence with other existing
> > standards such as RosettaNet, EDI/INT, etc.
> 
> [...]
> > > 2. namespaces
> > >
> > > MILR: Namespace can help avoid element name clashes, but IMO it doesn't
> > > addresss the equivalence of semantic entities across namespaces.
> > > Each option should be explored for possible appication within the ebXML
> > > header specification.
> > > I firmly believe the issues you raise, relative to the actual business
> > > transactions, needs to be addressed by the parties responsible for
> > > specifying these standards (e.g. OTA, et al).
> > >
> > > MILR:  I believe ebXML must adopt some XML syntax rules that adequately
> > > address the issue of semantics...

-- 
    _/    _/             Kit C. J. Lueder       
   _/   _/         _/   The MITRE Corp.         Tel:  703-883-5205
  _/_/_/    _/  _/_/_/ 1820 Dolley Madison Bl  Cell: 703-577-2463
 _/   _/   _/    _/   Mailstop W722           FAX:  703-883-7996
_/    _/  _/    _/   McLean, VA 22102        Mail: kit@mitre.org
Worse than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer.