Re: Messaging Service Comment

[Gordon van Huizen <gvanhuiz@progress.com>]

Re-send due to mail list failure:

Chris,

> Possibly, we should be working with one of these (or other) organizations
towards
> this end. However, let's not lose sight of the prime objective here.
> The interoperability we seek with ebXML is focused on inter-enterprise
> interoperability. This is acheived by defining the headers and the TPA,
> not a set of APIs which would allow for an enterprise to exchange
implementations
> without having to do much in the way of reengineering. YES, that is a good
> thing to have (eventually) but it is NOT a requirement for enabling
> interoperable exchange of messages between enterprises, small or large.

Where we differ is that I firmly believe that we MUST go through the
exercise of defining an interface to ensure that the headers do indeed
provide sufficient information for interoperability against a set of
semantics which fulfill the TR&P requirement. Whether the interface
definition itself is normative or not is irrelevant to the issue of
having enough depth and clarity regarding what truly needs to be in the
headers to support interoperability. If we don't examine the problem in
enough detail--and I clearly believe that developing an abstracted
interface that fulfills the TR&P requirements is an important step--we
will not have interoperability.

It seems like we go around and around with this, depending who is
involved in the discussion at any given point in time. In last week's
con call we discussed developing an abstracted interface in UML. We need
closure on this issue.

-gvh-
begin:vcard 
n:Van Huizen;Gordon
tel;work:510-848-1988
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.sonicmq.com
org:Progress Software;XML and Internet Technology
adr:;;14 Oak Park;Bedford;MA;01730;
version:2.1
email;internet:gvh@progress.com
title:Director, Product Management
fn:Gordon Van Huizen
end:vcard