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: Trading Partner Logical Identification based on EDIFACT or X12qualifiers

I agree with Ian, use of RegRep should be optional but definitely NOT


-----Original Message-----
From: ian.c.jones@bt.com [mailto:ian.c.jones@bt.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 8:44 AM
To: Gnosis_@compuserve.com
Cc: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: Trading Partner Logical Identification based on EDIFACT or
X1 2qualifiers


	We CAN NOT mandate the regrep lookup at run time. What if the
partners are using a non internet based connection or they want a closed or
private TPA?  Why would you want to validate the identifier each time, do
you do call information every time before you make a telephone call?  The
example is a bit crude but I support Dick, I want to be able to use ebXML
transport without using regrep.


-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
Sent: 16 August 2000 16:20
To: INTERNET:dick@8760.com
Cc: gvh@progress.com; David Burdett; ebXML Transport (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Trading Partner Logical Identification based on EDIFACT or

Dick you contradict yourself here!  On the one hand you have machine
requirements to interchange headers, then say its too much work to
do the repository as well.  Frankly I'm not impressed.   My two cents worth
is if you can handle all that MIME and SMTP stuff - you can surely do a
simple http query/response!  AND going forward we want to move to a
clean second generation XML/http layer anyway - MIME is a current
generation solution.

PLUS - and this is a big PLUS - what the heck is this?  I'm sorry but the
whole point of ebXML is to NOT sink into the EDI mire again.  EDI took
so blasted long to set up precisely because there was no MANDATED 
machine API interrogation.   Word Docs, FAX's, that's not acceptable,
its just trying to justify consultant time tinkering with stuff they should
have to touch. 

Plug-N-Play for EDI - is that too radical?

I say we make the Repository functionality mandatory, and show 
lightweight alternatives for when people are using it in-house to go
between two servers on their own systems (that has to be the 
least case use model).  A 'Repository' can then be as simple as an
ebXML-TRP.ini file in a sub-directory that contains the interchange


Message text written by INTERNET:dick@8760.com
Let's not confuse WHAT information has to be provided to make ebXML work
HOW the information is provided. I think we all agree that ebXML parties
agree on WHAT information is needed but HOW this information is obtained
stored will depend on many factors. Do we agree?

> If that's the case, and we're not careful to establish over-the-wire
> interoperability between ebXML messaging service implementations, remind
> me again why we're bothering to do ebXML?

ebXML is defining an over-the-wire specification within the TR&P specs
and packaging). This should (hopefully) ensure interoperability. ebXML is
defining WHAT information trading partners need in order to conduct
using ebXML. The point of this discussion is whether or not a ebXML host
provide a regrep API  to ensure interoperability. I contend that a
API IS NOT a requirement for interoperability because the information
needed to
exchange ebXML messages can be provided through several means (e-mail, word
docs, fax, et al). A regrep API might make the process more efficient in
cases, but it shouldn't be  a mandatory requirement.

> Or are you suggesting that Amazon doesn't need to be ebXML-compliant,
> but ebXML providers need to interoperate with whatever they have? That
> seems way outside the scope of ebXML, and into the land of vendor
> support for multiple eBusiness protocols/frameworks.

My main point is this;  some parts of ebXML are absolutely mandatory to
interoperability between trading partners, standard headers and packaging,
two classic examples. I DON'T believe a "repository interface (API)" is
to ensure interoperability. There are many ways to convey the information
HOW two parties engage in ebXML compliant E-Commerce without making this
information available via a programmatic interface. Would a standard
programmatic interface be useful - of course - in some cases, but not all.
Amazon example is one case where a programmatic interface to an ebXML
is unnecessary.


[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