RE: Trading Partner Logical Identification based on EDIFA

[David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>]

I also think that ConversationId is a better name. It's just that the
current definition of ConversationId is not clear - I'll post an alternative
when I review the document as a whole.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com]
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 6:54 AM
To: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Trading Partner Logical Identification based on EDIFA



The EbXML header also calls this (i.e. Message Set ID) a Conversation ID. I
find this
term to be the most descriptive because an ebXML based Business Process may
be conducting
several concurrent conversations with the same trading partner. Since this
ID is used to
link Messages associated with the same conversation I propose we stick with
Conversation
ID. This will also reduce confusion since the term is already in use in the
ebXML header
DTD.

On a related subject, I have heard the term Message Window in the Reliable
Messaging
spec. Again my interpretation is that this is referring to a Conversation.
If so we
should align the terminology and consistently call this concept a
Conversation that is
identified by a Conversation ID.

Is there a horizontal team that makes sure we get rapid alignment on common
terminology
across working groups? If so they should resolve this terminology issue
quickly.

--

Regards,
Farrukh

srh@us.ibm.com wrote:

> When we decided in Dallas on the term "Message Set" (my suggestion) the
> intention was
> merely to give identification within *an undefined context at the time*
> to that conversation/unit-of-business. I happen to like the term, as it
> avoids the overloaded *transaction*.
> There was no further semantic impled, certianly not routing. If we can
> seperate what/how issues it may help.
>
> Scott Hinkelman
> Senior Software Engineer, IBM Austin
> Emerging Technologies, SWG
> 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
> srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
>
> Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS on 08/16/2000 03:15:12 PM
>
> To:   David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
> cc:   "ebXML Transport (E-mail)" <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
> Subject:  RE: Re[2]: Trading Partner Logical Identification based on EDIFA
>
> Dave,
>
> I haven't been around ebXML long enough to know what the old message set
ID
> is but let me go into conversation ID a little more.
>
> A conversation (in tpaML terms) is the two way set of messages comprising
a
> single "unit of business".  It's sort of like a session as I think I
> pointed out in an earlier post about the messaging specification.  So I
> think it is equivalent to what you called a message set ID in your
posting.
> I did point out elsewhere that each party should be allowed to separately
> identify the conversation and suggested that the existing conversation ID
> should have separate subelements for the two parties.  The reason is that
> for routing purposes, the conversation ID should be a rapid locator. I
> suggested that each partner should be allowed to put in whatever it needs
> for its half of the conversation ID to enable rapid locating.  We do use
> the conversation ID for routing within each party in our IBM Research
> prototype run-time. I'm not sure that the URI qualifies as a rapid locator
> though of course using it shouldn't be precluded.
>
> The TPA is an identifier of the TPA document itself.  The TPA ID
identifies
> the application and pair of parties while the conversation ID identifies a
> specific conversation.  I did err in suggesting that both the TPA ID and
> the conversation ID are needed for routing.  If the conversation ID is
> unique within one party's messaging system, then conversation ID is the
> routing quantity and the TPA ID could be part of the state information for
> the conversation rather than being used for routing.  For the greatest
> implementation flexibility, however, I strongly suggest that the TPA  ID
> also be allowed to be a rapid locator and that each party be allowed to
> choose its own value for the TPA ID.  Clearly, the local TPA IDs could be
> associated with a global repository ID for the TPA but it's the two local
> values that should be in the message header to give the best routing
> implementation flexibility.
>
> Regards,
> Marty
>
>
****************************************************************************
*********
>
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
>
****************************************************************************
*********
>
> David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 08/16/2000 02:27:30 PM
>
> To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> cc:   "ebXML Transport (E-mail)" <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
> Subject:  RE: Re[2]: Trading Partner Logical Identification based on EDIFA
>
> Marty
>
> Somewhere in this text you say ...
>
> >>>Again, it is the combination of registry ID, partner ID, TPA ID, and
> conversation ID that does the routing<<<
>
> I'm under the impression that conversation ID is equivalent to what the
TRP
> used to call the Message Set Id which was defined as a unique identifier
> for
> the set of messages exchanged between two parties that support the
instance
> of an execution of a service.
>
> On the other hand the current spec defines conversationId as a URI which
> identifies the conversation instance of the Trading Partner Agreement
which
> governs the processing of the message and which holds the state of the
> conversation between the two Parties
>
> I don't think these things are quite the same. Can you clarify the
> distinction between a TPA Id and a Conversation Id. As if a Conversation
Id
> means the same as the old Message Set Id I don't think it should be used
> for
> routing.
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mwsachs@us.ibm.com [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 3:24 PM
> To: David RR Webber
> Cc: Mark NOBLES; ebXML-Transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: Trading Partner Logical Identification based on
> EDIFA
>
> Quite a flurry of postings!  I just got caught up on it.  I sense a great
> deal of violent agreement on the identifier subject.  I agree with Mark
> Nobles' last posting and Dave Webber's agreement with it.  Here are a few
> summary points:
>
> <SNIP>