Re: Message Service Interface

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

Nick,

> However, the argument that a UML based MSI
> definition could contribute to the "proof of correctness" of the MS spec.
> may have some merit. It certainly  can't hurt. It may also formalize the MS
> & BP layering. 

These were the key motivations I saw for pressing ahead with the MSI
work. The former makes the effort directly relevant to the goal of
interoperable MS implementations, at least to my mind. The latter is
precisely the kind of "integration" work we need to perform to make
ebXML really hang together, and ensure that our bases are covered
between the various project teams.

I'll leave it to the team leaders to prioritize the MSI definition
within the schedule, but I do believe it to be important for the above
reasons.

-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