David,
Basically, I agree.
The critical item is (3), which the CPPA team has on its list of proposed
work items. This would overcome the vagueness in some parts of the MSG
spec which results from the zeal to keep the CPA optional.
Regars,
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 07/30/2001 07:14:53 PM
To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: "'Arvola Chan'" <arvola@tibco.com>, David Fischer
<david@drummondgroup.com>, ebXML Msg
<ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>, Pete Wenzel
<Pete.Wenzel@RosettaNet.org>, ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: PIP IDs
Hi Marty ...
I think there is more of a inconsistency rather than a separation between
the specs. As using the CPA and the Messaging specs together is not easy.
How about the following as a way forward ...
1. The Messaging Specification:
a) Identifies the set of parameters that need to be agreed/shared for
MSHs
to interact successfully and that this information can be held:
i) within the ebXML Message Header, or
ii) elsewhere as separately agreed
b) States that the CPAId identifies the values to be used for the
information that needs to be agreed.
c) States that **a** method of representing and exchanging the data that
needs to be agreed is defined by the CPPA specification
3. The CPPA specification describes how those MSH parameters can be
recorded
and linked and related to a business process/transaction, etc
I think that could meet all of our objectives. Does this make sense?
David