Title: RE: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem
Bob
This
effectively what I am suggesting except that I want to make it explicit. The
PartyId should identify the "business" or a division of the business. In the
real world we would would say, please reply to:
Customer Service
ABC Co
123 Main St
Smallville, CA
In
this instance the internal department is "Customer Service" and the Party is
"ABC Co".
Doing
it your way we would say, please reply to:
Customer Service, ABC Co
123 Main St
Smallville, CA
Where "Customer Service,
ABC Co" is the Party and department
combined.
Although we could do it the way you suggest and
concatenate the two in the spec, this is not the best way to do it if you are
using XML where the whole idea is to make the different elements of a data
structure explicit. It also causes problems for the recipient. For example,
following your suggestion your PartyId might look something
like:
<From><PartyId>urn:duns:1234567:fromservice:CustService</PartyId></From>
The recipient now has a problem that they don't which
part of the PartyId identifies the business and which the service unless we
specify the standard in the spec. This means that they might not even be able to
recognize the sending Party. I think it would be much easier if we
had:
<From><PartyId>urn:duns:1234567</PartyId><Service>CustService</Service></From>
In this case the PartyID represents the business and
the "From Service" is identified separately. So really I am agreeing with you
except that I think we should make the information explicit rather than buried
in the PartyId.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Miller, Robert (GXS)
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001
6:24 AM
To: Burdett, David; 'ebXML Messaging
(E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path
Problem
Good People,
In the EDI world, we simply use multiple from party
addresses. For example, we might use a DUNS number, in which the high
order part of the number has been assigned to our compnay, and the low order
portion is internally assigned.
Seems to me that life gets even easier in the Internet
world. We're all familiar with the EMail 'mailroom'. It's the name
that follows the "@" symbol. The internal address is the part that
preceeds the "@" symbol. We're also familiar with subaddesses in the
WWW. The mailroom address preceeds the '/', and the subaddresses follow
the first '/'/
Why isn't the obvious solution being considered? I'm
confused.
Cheers,
Bob Miller
-----Original Message-----
From:
Burdett, David [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 7:31 PM
To: 'ebXML Messaging (E-mail)'
Subject:
[ebxml-msg] RE: The Return Path Problem
I forgot the attachment ... ;(
David
<<The Return Path
Problem.pdf>>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burdett,
David
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 5:28
PM
> To: ebXML Messaging
(E-mail)
> Subject:
The Return Path Problem
>
> Folks
>
>
Here's a PDF that describes three use cases that illustrate the return
> path problem that is on the agenda for next week's F2F.
Two of the use
> cases are from the meeting at SAP
in October which we never got round to
> discussing
the third is new.
>
> I
also suggest some solutions. Note that these are suggestions and I am
> open to alternatives.
>
> If anyone has any comments before the meeting
then ... ;)
>
>
Regards
>
> David
>
> Product Manager, xCBL, XML
Standards
> Solution Strategy, Commerce One
> 4400 Rosewood Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588, USA
> Tel/VMail: +1 (925) 520 4422; Cell: +1 (925) 216
7704
> mailto:;
Web: http://www.commerceone.com
>
