OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC

 View Only

RE: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem

  • 1.  RE: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem

    Posted 11-12-2001 12:50
     MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    ebxml-msg message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


    Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem


    Title: RE: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem
    Bob
     
    This effectively what I am suggesting except that I want to make it explicit. The PartyId should identify the "business" or a division of the business. In the real world we would would say, please reply to:
     
        Customer Service
        ABC Co
        123 Main St
        Smallville, CA
     
    In this instance the internal department is "Customer Service" and the Party is "ABC Co".
     
    Doing it your way we would say, please reply to:
     
        Customer Service, ABC Co
        123 Main St
        Smallville, CA
     
    Where "Customer Service, ABC Co" is the Party and department combined.
     
    Although we could do it the way you suggest and concatenate the two in the spec, this is not the best way to do it if you are using XML where the whole idea is to make the different elements of a data structure explicit. It also causes problems for the recipient. For example, following your suggestion your PartyId might look something like:
     
        <From><PartyId>urn:duns:1234567:fromservice:CustService</PartyId></From>
     
    The recipient now has a problem that they don't which part of the PartyId identifies the business and which the service unless we specify the standard in the spec. This means that they might not even be able to recognize the sending Party. I think it would be much easier if we had:
     
        <From><PartyId>urn:duns:1234567</PartyId><Service>CustService</Service></From>
     
    In this case the PartyID represents the business and the "From Service" is identified separately. So really I am agreeing with you except that I think we should make the information explicit rather than buried in the PartyId.
     
    David