Re: Test vs. Production

[Bruce Peat <BPeat@eProcessSolutions.com>]

When I brought up the 'T' and 'P' tagging to OTA it was added to the
specification; on the other hand when I brought up the same issue with ebXML
Transport WG in Brussels there weren't any takers and thus not in the
current draft.  In Brussels our focus was on a minimalist viewpoint.

Note: The same goes for control counters, the idea was rejected in Brussels
once again I believe to be due to the flavor of the meeting, but if the
Boston meeting is any indicator of future additions to the draft, I suspect
we will find these at any of the batching levels.

As far as William's assumption that <ServiceType> element, might be used for
internal routing to the appropriate application, I believe this to be
incorrect.  Once again as for an internal routing field, OTA added this, but
was rejected by ebXML.  The thought here is ebXML has chosen to handle
point-to-point only, with a decision to repackage the message or invoke an
internal process by the 'ebXML server'.   This field might find itself in
the payload as per the Business Process WG.

As you can imagine, we are doing with ebXML Transport as most messaging
initiatives, asking ourselves do we:  (1) assist applications with 'help
from below' information or (2) stay clear making the delineation clear
between transport and application.  I consider 'help from below' items as
the control counters as discussed above along with Application specifc
Correlation ID and Role security linking.  The current direction with ebXML
is #2, delineating between transport and application information without the
common 'help from below' transaction information in the specification.

Those working on ebXML are making some very difficult decisions and we would
very much appreciate your input into the process.

- Bruce


----- Original Message -----
From: "William J. Kammerer" <wkammerer@foresightcorp.com>
To: <xmledi-group@disa.org>
Cc: "ebXML Transport (E-mail)" <ebXML-Transport@lists.ebxml.org>;
<xmledi-group@disa.org>; "X12X TG4 XML" <X12XML@disa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: Test vs. Production


Doug Anderson, of Kleinschmidt Inc., has written all around with:

   Today in EDI we have a test/production indicator in the header
   (ISA in ASC X12, UNB in UN/EDIFACT) that allows someone to route
   the data to the correct system.  Is there something similar in
   XML either in use today or on the drawing board?  We don't want
   to create something if this has already been solved.  We have a
   customer that will be moving some of their trading partners into
   production and would prefer not to have to change receiver ID's
   in order to differentiate between those trading partners in test
   vs. those in production.

Dear Doug:

The ebXML Initiative is developing a specification for Transport,
Packaging and Routing, roughly the analog of Internet EDI (EDIINT) and
ISO 9735 control information slapped together.  You can find the latest
specifications at http://www.ebxml.org/specindex.htm, including the
ebXML TR&P Overview & Requirements v0-96 and the ebXML Message Envelope
Specification v0-5.  Neither seem to cover this topic explicitly, though
the ebxmlheader <ServiceType> element, which looks like it is used for
internal routing to the appropriate application, might be called into
service for differentiating test and production.  ebXML is not ready for
prime-time, yet. I've copied this to the ebXML TR&P group so they vet my
answer and add the requirement to their "To-Do" list.

You can also take a look at the BizTalk Framework 2.0, at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/articles/biztalk/biztalkfwv2draft.asp.
N.B., BizTalk is now based on SOAP; it doesn't seem to have made a
provision for testing, either.

You probably want the indicator to be available in the transport and
packaging framework, rather than embedded within the application message
(e.g., the Open Travel Alliance (OTA) message root tag has a
production/test indicator).

Another alternative is to take the XML message and wrap it up in an ANSI
ASC X12 102 Associated Data transaction set!  Then you can avail
yourself of the existing X12 headers to route the data.  This would be
the most painless route for a "legacy" VAN, wouldn't it?

Out of curiosity, just what is your customer doing in XML?  What XML
"messages" are being used?  Which industry? Couldn't the customer have
just used EDI?  Why all this rush to use XML?

/s
A Luddite,

William J. Kammerer
FORESIGHT Corp.
4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy.
Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
+1 614 791-1600

Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
"Commerce for a New World"




------   XML/edi Group Discussion List   ------
Homepage =  http://www.XMLedi-Group.org

Unsubscribe =  send email to: xmledi-group-leave@disa.org
Leave the subject and body of the message blank

Questions/requests:  xmledi-group-owner@disa.org

To receive only one message per day (digest format)
send the following message to listserv@disa.org,
(leave the subject line blank)

digest xmledi-group your-email-address

To join the XML/edi Group complete the form located at:
http://www.xmledi-group.org/xmledigroup/mail1.htm