RE: Applying transformations to Payloads (compression)

["Welsh, David" <David.Welsh@nordstrom.com>]

Yes, that makes all the sense (and it'll work in practice too !) in both
points you make.
Besides, aren't we always really saying doing business via ebXML will be
efficient for everyone. Business & technical alike !

Thanks again for the time. Just proves to me again, ebXML can be easily made
to work in business.
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 1:27 PM
> To: Welsh, David
> Cc: 'rawlins@metronet.com'; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org;
> ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: RE: Applying transformations to Payloads (compression)
> 
> 
> 
> As was pointed out earlier, the way to say that a given 
> collaboration is
> hosting compression is in the CPA.
> 
> I agree that "compressing payloads isn't an operating 
> business applications
> thing".  Architecturally, compression should be considered an 
> application
> service.  It is outside the current scope of the TRP 
> specification.  It is
> a function which is common across many or all applications 
> and therefore
> should be implemented by the business to business middleware 
> and invoked by
> the application when needed.
> 
> Regards,
> Marty
> 
> **************************************************************
> ***********************
> 
> Martin W. Sachs
> 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
> **************************************************************
> ***********************
> 
> 
> 
> "Welsh, David" <David.Welsh@nordstrom.com> on 01/03/2001 02:06:35 PM
> 
> To:   "'rawlins@metronet.com'" <rawlins@metronet.com>,
>       ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
> cc:
> Subject:  RE: Applying transformations to Payloads (compression)
> 
> 
> 
> Mike,
> My suggestion is compressed payloads is generally motivated 
> by practical
> (perceived by the press or the general public about the data size
> ineffeciency of XML) efficiency concerns and compressed payloads is
> something that I am today in a real business world will 
> typically "choose
> to
> do" on a mutual business partner relationship & document level basis.
> 
> For example, for the same document (ex. an invoice) I may 
> need to support
> compressed payloads with some external partners, while for the same
> business
> document & same business operating process (same business 
> operating rules
> of
> when/what/where .. I expect/handle ebXML documents relative 
> to a prescribed
> business operating set of activities) I may not be able to 
> let compressed
> payloads take place for a whole variety of business and maybe 
> legal reasons
> in some country's around the world.
> 
> There initially needs to be a way to identify that a mutually defined
> collaboration between business "partners" is hosting 
> compression,  like
> there are intentions to say mutual partners are going to 
> hhtp/s, or ...
> Further, to ensure common consistancy, compressing payloads isn't an
> operating business applications thing, like an inventory management
> application doesn't go down to the http level ....
> 
> Thanks again
> Dave Welsh
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 10:37 AM
> > To: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
> > Subject: Re: Applying transformations to Payloads (compression)
> >
> >
> > BTW - I just got a reject from doing a "reply/all" which
> > included the TRP list.
> > Can we keep this discussion to just one list and not do 
> cross-posting?
> >
> > Mike Rawlins wrote:
> >
> > > If I may go back a few steps to my original comment about
> > the business need,
> > > Mr. Welsh came forward as one user with a specific need for
> > compression.  At
> > > least one other person offered a perceived need for SME's
> > in Europe sending
> > > XML over VANs to have compression.   We have seen several
> > proposed technical
> > > solutions, but not a concise statement of the requirement.
> >  May I suggest we
> > > can focus more clearly on the best solution by first more
> > clearly defining the
> > > requirement?  For starters, I'll take a stab at it:
> > >
> > > ebXML must provide the ability to indicate that part or all
> > of a message
> > > payload is compressed, and if compressed, the compression method.
> > >
> > > Note I don't say *how* we provide the ability (MHS or CPP),
> > but just that we
> > > do.
> > >
> > > Issue:
> > >
> > > All documents or selective:  Will it suffice to say that
> > *all* documents and
> > > payloads between two entities will be compressed, or is
> > there a need to
> > > specify compression on a per document basis?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > --
> > > Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
> > > http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/
> >
> > --
> > Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
> > http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/
> >
> >
> 
> 
>