David,
If you do some thinking about all the things that might differ between
applications, you might reconsider wanting a CPA to cover an entire
enterprise. There is nothing to stop a CPA between two parties from
including more than one BPSS description but it probably wouldn't be too
many.
Content-based routing requires function that understands the content.
That's usually viewed as application function, not message routing.
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
*************************************************************************************
"Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> on 11/12/2001 04:59:39 PM
To: "'Dan Weinreb'" <dlw@exceloncorp.com>, "Burdett, David"
<david.burdett@commerceone.com>
cc: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem
Dan
I agree with your definition of a "Party", and yes I assume that there is
only one MSH within a party that implements a Service and Action. I also
agree that we need to be more explicit about what is (or is not) a Party
and
MSH.
However I don't think that limiting a Party to one MSH Service and Action
is
necessarily a problem as:
1. A Party can represent a division of a company (as in DUNS+4)
2. If you need more than one MSH for a Service and Action within a company,
then you do content based routing where some other data (perhaps in the
payload) is ued to do the second level routing.
I also think that a CPA should be between businesses and not between
applications as the maintenance level required by the keeping CPAs between
individual applications is too high. What I think Marty's suggestion
implies
would mean you would have to update your CPA with a business if you wanted
to do a query for a new reason.
I also agree that Service and Action are "what" type information and that
we
need the "how". It's just that I think you should be able to dervice the
"how" dynamically from the "what" rather than just ignore the "what" for
routing purposes.
Regards
David