Re: [Fwd: Re[2]: Concern with basic ebXML TRP Syntax/Semantics]

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>]

All,

Clearly, there is still abundant misconception as well 
as misunderstanding of the TR&P's use of MIME
for the *packaging* of ebXML messages.

MIME is used *exclusively* as the packaging medium
for messages which will typically, although not exclusively,
be XML including ALL of the ebXML header information
which will be expressed as an XML document(s?).

The MIME usage in the TR&P packaging can be thought of
as paper, plastic or foil wrap for the ebXML sandwich. Just
something which holds the pieces together. A sandwich
without the wrapping would be reduced to cold-cuts and 
bread when transported home from the deli without its 
packaging. It is all the same bits, but some of the context 
has been lost;-) 

Bottom line. The sandwich is the *same* regardless of
the choice of wrapping used by the deli.

To finish the analogy:
	XML == ham and cheese on rye == business document & msg header
	MIME == plastic wrap
	other == paper or foil == any other packaging technology
		*including* the not-yet-developed XML packaging
		specification and technology some seem to believe
		is somehow a requirement for ebXML

The message (business document and header info) is *still* XML 
regardless of which packaging technology is used. 

MIME usage in this context is irrelevant to the business/application 
processing (whether B2B or A2A or x2x). None of the information
in or about the message is expressed as MIME headers unless, of 
course, the business partners have chosen to exchange
information (payload) expressed as MIME headers (something which 
our packaging solution will permit, but likely, a bit obtuse;-).

MIME packaging is supported directly by many of the deployed infrastructure technologies (HTTP,
SMTP, etc.) and indirectly
by others (eg. FTP which ignores it all together). MIME
packaging software is readily available (eg. javax.mail.internet.*)
and easy to use.

Our use of MIME does not, in any way, conflict with our (ebXML)
overall objective of enabling XML message exchange across
the internet. If anything, it allows us to get there sooner
rather than later, and yet leaves the door open for something
else down the road.

Cheers,

Chris

Surendra K Reddy wrote:
> 
> I see many benefits of doing it in XML compared to MIME.
> In one important aspect is providing an extensible framework through
> XML where MIME from the business perspective is more complicated
> in M2H(machien-to-human) interactions or A2A/B2B scenarios.
> 
> --Surendra
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org
> [mailto:owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of William
> J. Kammerer
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 6:54 AM
> To: ebXML-Transport@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re[2]: Concern with basic ebXML TRP Syntax/Semantics]
> 
> Dick Brooks asked on April 12th: "Why should we invest a significant
> amount of time to recreate MIME as XML when the end result is something
> that is more complicated and less functional that MIME, why not simply
> use MIME? What is the advantage of being "pure XML"? Someone please
> answer this question - I'm stumped!"
> 
> Ooops!!  What if I substituted "EDIFACT" or "X12" for every instance of
> "MIME" in your message?
> 
> William J. Kammerer
> FORESIGHT Corp.
> 4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy.
> Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
> (614) 791-1600
> 
> Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
> "Commerce for a New World"