RE: Test Indicator Issue

[Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>]

We should avoid one of the things I have been told happened to EDI. That, in order to accomodate everything that each one wanted to fit, the meaning of the information was becoming too much subjective.

As of me, I would say that if we believe that ebXML is there to stay, it will be more priority to establish a clear context than to accomodate any variant.
My 2 cents.

/Stefano

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Hinkelman [mailto:srh@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 9:14 PM
> To: christopher ferris
> Cc: Prasad Yendluri; ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: Re: Test Indicator Issue
> 
> 
> The downside of this is of course is "optionality" or "open semantics"
> impact interoperability. We need to think this one carefully.
> 
> Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
> XML Industry Enablement
> IBM e-business Standards Strategy
> 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
> srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
> 
> 
> 
> christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> on 11/30/2000 02:08:19 PM
> 
> To:   Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> cc:   Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>,
>       ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject:  Re: Test Indicator Issue
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> This is, I believe the rough consensus we achieved with
> today's call. Of course, not all factions were represented;-)
> 
> I'll be posting a formal proposal shortly which provides
> basically what you suggest, for the very reasons you cite.
> 
> I for one don't think that this is a feature I'd use myself, but
> since many protocols do have such a feature, they would be
> hard pressed to find a means of achieving that same
> functionality of we do not provide for it in some manner.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> Scott Hinkelman wrote:
> >
> > Something to keep in mind:
> > If it is elected to be dropped, then some verticals that use 
> such a thing
> > (regardless of
> > their intended use) will have to accommodate it regardless, and will its
> > absence
> > be viewed as a shortcoming? One option is to include it,
> > with semantics to be used as seen fit.......
> >
> > Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
> > XML Industry Enablement
> > IBM e-business Standards Strategy
> > 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
> > srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
> >
> > christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> on 11/30/2000 01:35:58 PM
> >
> > To:   Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
> > cc:   ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> > Subject:  Re: Test Indicator Issue
> >
> > Prasad,
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback. It hasn't been voted up or
> > down yet. I will be sending out two proposals for a vote
> > via the list shortly.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Prasad Yendluri wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am a little late jumping onto this thread but, here is my two cents
> on
> > this:
> > >
> > > In my experience people have used this flag (say in 
> RosettaNet) to test
> > their production
> > > sites prior to going "live". Having the test indicator in the actual
> > message (header),
> > > that is transferred alleviates any legal binding of such test 
> messages.
> > >
> > > If this is already voted down please ignore.
> > >
> > > Thanks, Prasad
> 
> 
> 
> 
>