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 MSI and BSI and move on




From: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
To: "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:03:05 -0700






So far I gather:

1. The BSI (Business Service Interface) is not really an interface.
2. BSI is like an abstract class (or a stereotyped <<abstract>> UML
class diagram) and not meant to directly have instances (no "new" method
defined). It can be extended to classes that are themselves
implementable(?) or concrete. Not clear here, but probably not relevant.

An item named "interface" that is not an interface seems a bit
confusing. You can imagine how some of us might have overlooked that
subtlety. 

Still where is the harm in saying that a business has services that have
interfaces? Shall we talk of these as BSI<<ebXML>> to ward off our
apparent "abuses of notation"? 

It might really be fairer to allow non-architectural groups to use the
term and acronyms involving "interface" because that is what we are
talking about. Maybe Abstract Business Service Class for the
architectural catch-all?