OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC

RE: [ebxml-msg] FW: [ebxml-msg-comment] Public Comment

  • 1.  RE: [ebxml-msg] FW: [ebxml-msg-comment] Public Comment

    Posted 02-24-2005 03:42
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    ebxml-msg message

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


    Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] FW: [ebxml-msg-comment] Public Comment


    Title: RE: [ebxml-msg] FW: [ebxml-msg-comment] Public Comment

    Because the CPPA editor’s draft of version 2.1 finally addresses (some of) the extensibility points, there are options for adding new DocumentExchange specifications that would be the natural place to document payload capabilities. For example, WSDL interface descriptions/definitions are incorporated as extensions within the DocumentExchange module. Probably before 2.1 gets TC approval it will add support for other extensions of this kind. Maybe Jacques can help the CPPA folks identify what “features and properties” need to be added for full RosettaNet support.

    Dale Moberg


    From: Jacques Durand [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:17 PM
    To: 'Pete Wenzel';
    Cc: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org; Farrukh Najmi
    Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] FW: [ebxml-msg-comment] Public Comment

    There is the notion of "abstract trading partner agreement" (ATPA) in MMS
    which roughly overlaps with a subset of CPA. Some aspects of this ATPA are beyond
    CPA (I believe, or else would require some extensions), like payload capabilities.
    (but there is no recommended format for ATPA - of course CPAs will derive from it for
    ebMS mapping)

    Jacques

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Pete Wenzel [mailto:pete@seebeyond.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 1:21 PM
    To:
    Cc: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org; Farrukh Najmi
    Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] FW: [ebxml-msg-comment] Public Comment

    Good answers, Dale.  I also was confused by this:

    > 2. Technical Architecture: In the area of implementation architecture, I
    > think I have no problem on the end-end components. 
    >
    > a. I have some questions on whether a dual-protocol (AS2 & ebMS)
    > registry has been something anyone has done before?
    >
    > Dale> I am not certain what this means. The ebMS registry can be used to
    > store ebXML information concerning business processes (BPSS instances)
    > as well as profiles for messaging (CPPs and CPA templates). In the CPPA
    > group, an editor's draft shows how a CPP could be used to support AS2,
    > but it is not released. So an ebMS registry may eventually support
    > profiles for AS2 if they emerge. If the question was, can a Registry be
    > accessed using AS2, I think the answer at the moment is "no" [Including
    > Farrukh on the list for confirmation on this.]

    and assumed he was talking about participants who expose multiple
    protocol endpoints, and how to register them all.  If AS2 had
    something equivalent to CPP/CPA that could be registered, that would
    solve the problem.  I wonder if the RosettaNet MMS program is tackling
    this issue?

    --Pete
    Pete Wenzel <pete@seebeyond.com>
    Senior Architect, SeeBeyond
    Standards & Product Strategy
    +1-626-471-6311 (US-Pacific)

    To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/members/leave_workgroup.php.



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