Re: "Primary Business Document"

One or more business signals, along with a business response can
be carried in the same ebXML message in the synchronous reply
mode. I suspect that each of the above has to be treated as one
attachment to the SOAP message with attachments.

The CPP/CPA has a Packaging element that is supposed to
describe the constituents of a payload and its security packaging.
However, the SimplePart element in the CPP/A currently does not
seem to have any linkage to a BusinessDocument at the BPSS level

I think this is an alignment issue among the MSG, CPP/A, and
eBTWG workgroups.

-Arvola

-----Original Message-----
From: Burdett, David <>
To: Dan Weinreb <>; 
<>
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 4:33 PM
Subject: RE: "Primary Business Document"


>Dan
>
>You are right that this needs to be spelt out. I don't like using position
>to indicate the primary document as it is implicit rather than explicit.
>
>I'd rather use the "xlink:role" attribute of the Reference element within
>the Manifest and set it to a value that has the semantics that the BPSS
spec
>requires. For example we could set role to
>"http:www.ebxml.org/messageService/role/primarydocument" or something
>similar. This could then also be used by other standards that have a
similar
>requirement.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>David
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Weinreb [mailto:]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:30 AM
>To: 
>Subject: "Primary Business Document"
>
>
>In the BPSS spec (version 1.01, 11 May 2001, page 21, line 798, sec
>6.4.1.4) it says that a "Each Document Envelope carries one primary
>Business Document"; shortly thereafter it says that "A Document
>Envelope can optionally have one or more attachments".
>
>I haven't found any spec that spells out the mapping between the
>concepts and terminology of BPSS with those of MS.  In this case, I
>would guess, just because it seems natural, that BPSS's "primary
>Business Document" would be the equivalent of MS's "the contents of
>the first Payload Container", and the BPSS "attachments" would
>correspond to "the contents of the second and subsequent Payload
>Containers".  But maybe this guess is wrong, and it does seem that it
>ought to be specified somewhere or other.
>
>In fact, it would not hurt to spell out the fact, if I'm not mistaken,
>that every BPSS "DocumentEnvelope" is implemented by one ebMS
>"Message", whereas some ebMS "messages" do not correspond to any BPSS
>"DocumentEnvelope" (including but not limited to those with no payload
>components).
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>