Re: FW: Latest Specification document

[srh@us.ibm.com]

Chris and Bob,
|The term 'transaction' is somewhat misleading. The
|article being referenced by 'it' is a _message_.
|There may be any number of discrete messages
|involved in a business 'transaction'. There is
|also the implied connotation that the article is
|somehow a 'transaction' in CS terms (eg. database
|transaction with ACID properties). I wouldn't
|want to see this characterization made of
|ebXML _messages_.

We agreed in the Dallas Transport meeting to stop using the word
"transaction"
precisely for the reason (Chris) stated. The correct terminology is now
"Message Set" which may have one or more "Messages". The term
"transaction" is overloaded depending on your background.

Scott R. Hinkelman
Senior Software Engineer
XML/Java Solutions/Standards
Architecture and Development
IBM Austin
Office: 512-823-8097 TieLine: 793-8097
Home: 512-930-5675, Cell: 512-940-0519
srh@us.ibm.com
Fax: 512-838-1074



Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> on 05/03/2000 08:32:57 AM

To:   ebXML-transport@lists.oasis-open.org
cc:   ebXML-Architecture@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:  Re: FW: Latest Specification document




I have a bit of heartburn with the phrasing
of the note itself...

"... to identify it as an ebXML compliant transaction."

The term 'transaction' is somewhat misleading. The
article being referenced by 'it' is a _message_.
There may be any number of discrete messages
involved in a business 'transaction'. There is
also the implied connotation that the article is
somehow a 'transaction' in CS terms (eg. database
transaction with ACID properties). I wouldn't
want to see this characterization made of
ebXML _messages_.

Cheers,

Chris
"Miller, Robert (GXS)" wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> The Architecture Document (Section 3.5.5 a)(TechArch group) currently
> proposes that an ebXML document be framed within an 'ebXML' element.
> TR&P is referenced in an Editor's note to this rule. See below:
>
>   a)      The message will use a root tag of <ebXML> to identify it as an
> ebXML compliant transaction.
>
>   [EDITORS NOTE:  THE TRP GROUP MUST EITHER ADOPT THIS OR SPECIFY AN
> ALTERNATIVE IDENTIFICATION ELEMENT OR METHOD]
>
> I do not support this means of identification, and propose instead that
an
> XML conformant document include a 'Processing Instruction' asserting
ebXML
> compliance.  I suggest:
>
>         <?ebXML version='1.0' reference='someURI'>
>
> where 'version' provides the ebXML version to which compliance is
claimed,
> and
>       'reference' provides a URI for use in accessing a repository of
> metadata relating to this message.
>
> I believe this approach is less intrusive upon XML syntax.  It eliminates
> the need, if a DTD (or other schema declaration)is used, to define an
ebXML
> element and its allowed content.
>
> Cheers,
>         Bob