OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-transport message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: RE: Concern with basic ebXML TRP Syntax/Semantics

When Dick writes the packaging document, he will say that xml will not
handle our needs at the moment, but as it matures in this area we will shift
to a totally xml package.

Lets don't get caught in an "when one has a hammer, every thing is a nail"

xml will not solve all problems, especially at its current stage of

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of Dick
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 9:07 AM
To: Kit (Christopher) Lueder; Christopher Ferris
Cc: ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org; ebxml-requirements
Subject: RE: Concern with basic ebXML TRP Syntax/Semantics


This looks like an issue for the TR&P chairman to resolve. You lucky guy!

Dick Brooks

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of Kit
(Christopher) Lueder
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 4:44 PM
To: Christopher Ferris
Cc: ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org; ebxml-requirements
Subject: Re: Concern with basic ebXML TRP Syntax/Semantics

Thanks, but you need to take this back to the ebXML requirements group,
for alignment. I am cc'ing them on this.

Christopher Ferris wrote:
> Kit,
> While I wasn't able to participate the the f2f meeting in
> Dallas and can't speak to the finalized packaging minutia
> I can address this from the perspective of one of the
> members of the packaging sub-team.
> We discussed this in depth in the packaging sub-team.
> We felt that there was inadequate support in the various
> W3C XML recommendations to support our requirements
> which follow:
> - Able to handle large documents
> - Able to envelope any document type
> - Minimize intrusion to payload (special encodings or alterations)
> - Minimize potential for abnormal termination caused by envelopes
> - Facilitate a migration path for existing installed base and technologies
> - Low processing overhead
> - Support for recursive documents
> - Able to preserve digital signatures
> - Able to unambiguously identify signed data
> To quote Dick's minutes of our sub-team meeting:
> <db>
> Both MIME and XML were discussed relative to these requirements. It
> was the groups consensus that MIME was better positioned today to
> meet the stated requirements. However, it was also believed that XML
> would mature as a packaging technology and the ebXML group should
> continue to monitor XML's progress for possible inclusion at a later date.
> It was also believed that Microsoft may have addressed some of the
> issues affecting XML's packaging ability. Dick Brooks accepted an
> action item to contact Microsoft to request information describing
> BizTalk's packaging functions to see if this may provide an XML
> packaging solution that meets the above requirements.
> </db>
> Another consideration in our work, and something clearly called out
> in the ebXML requirements document are the vision bullets. Specifically:
>     - is fully compliant with W3C XML technical specifications holding a
>         recommended status
>     - maximizes interoperability and efficiency while providing a
>         transition path from accredited electronic data interchange (EDI)
>         and developing XML business standards
> The first is key. It refers to W3C technical specifications holding
> a *recommended* status. The second is also key. It refers to
> a requirement to enable existing solutions such as RosettaNet and
> EDI/INT, etc. to interoperate (at least that's how I read it).
> This second bullet is called out again in the "General ebXML
> Principles" section in the Requirements document. Someone certainly
> thinks it s important. I for one concur.
> Another consideration which went into our thinking is the availability
> of software to handle the package. HTTP and SMTP clients and
> servers already support MIME and are both inexpensive and
> widely available if not ubiquitous.
> In the Requirements document, under the TR&P sub-section, #2
>     "Leveraging existing technology encompasses both the ability to
>     interoperate with existing technology as well as the ability to
>     migrate to the new technology".
> In fact, that whole section pretty much sums it up for me.
> I believe that there is consensus that ultimately, we will transition
> to an XML-based approach to packaging, but at least for the
> first go, MIME is the only solution which satisfies all of the
> requirements.
> To my knowledge, the ebXML Requirements document doesn't
> say "use XML to the exclusion of any other technology just because".
> MIME seems to meet our requirements and since the content
> of the MIME segments is XML (except in cases where an
> "attachment" is of some other type such as image, etc.) we're
> also meeting the spirit of the ebXML requirements.
> If you have knowledge of a purely XML-based packaging
> solution which meets all of the stated requirements, and which
> the packaging sub team has missed in its considerations, I'm
> sure that we'd be glad to reconsider.
> Cheers,
> Chris
> "Kit (Christopher) Lueder" wrote:
> > 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.

    _/    _/             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.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC