MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ebxml-msg message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] Re: [ebsoa] Re: [ebxml-bp] Closing the gap between MSIand BSI and move on
Dale:
No problem, let me explain. BSI is an abstract, all inclusive
architectural term used to describe how another party can engage with
the party. It was used rather than tying the architecture specifically
to CPP, CPA, BPSS and anything else. We used this for a number of
reasons. One was at the time, it was clear that Core Components would
not produce Schemas or other payload metadata. Such is clearly needed
at the concrete level to build an implementation. Also BPSS told the TA
group that they were not working on a serializable format for BPSS,
something that has since been corrected. It was a catch-all concept
(business items, technical parameters, etc.) but no explicit set of
parameters was named to make up the concept.
Instead of interfaces to java classes (which do usually use the
convention of the class name), think of it like an abstract java class
that is not for implementation. It gets implemented using other
concrete classes. In a UML class view diagram, when one uses the
<<abstract>> stereotype, I think the convention is not to duplicate the
abstract class name in the concrete class name.
To implement the concept, one would inherit the concept into their
specific ebXML architectural model, then specialize and elaborate it
using things like CPA, BPSS, SOAP, WSDL etc. In short, it is best
described as a component of a reference model that architecture, even
though it does talk about it within the architecture quite a bit.
There is no really need to worry about it unless someone starts trying
to discuss building a concrete BSI spec ;-)
Duane
Dale Moberg wrote:
>Hi Duane,
>
>It seems a bit confusing to me to say that something that implements an
>interface cannot use the name of the interface when indicating what
>interface it is implementing.
>
>E.g., java classes implement interfaces and use the name of the
>interface to indicate the interface(s) so implemented.
>
>Puzzled what your point is. Too abstruse for me. Not going to worry
>about it unless you clearly explain the badness.
>
>If there is a gap, I guess it means that there needs to be a realignment
>of the outgrown 1.04 draft with what is going on. Too bad we don't have
>a replacement yet :-)
>
>Dale
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 1:53 PM
>To: Monica J. Martin
>Cc: David Webber (XML); Sacha Schlegel; ebXML BP;
>ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org; ebsoa
>Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] Re: [ebsoa] Re: [ebxml-bp] Closing the gap
>between MSI and BSI and move on
>
>
>
>Monica J. Martin wrote:
>
>
>
>>mm2: Education is always an opportunity Duane. Remember that the/these
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>interface(s) may actually become physical in a deployable logical
>>environment. I believe our original text surrounding this relationship
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>was clear after all. However, I will in more detail review the many
>>posts last night and today to see what can be improved upon in the
>>text that was agreed to yesterday morning. Thanks.
>>
>>
>
>Monica:
>
>When they become physical, they should be called CPA, eb MS and BPSS.
>
>There is no concrete BSI. BSI is an abstract concept - it would be very
>
>bad practice (and most confusing) for someone to develop a concrete
>thing and give it the same name.
>
>Education attempt:
>When modeling, BSI is an abstract concept.
>When implementing, can be done via CPA, MS and BPSS.
>
>Duane
>
>
>
>
--
***********
Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources - http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
***********
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]