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