MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
ebxml-msg message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] FW: [ebxml-dev] ebXML MS Headers and Application layerprocessing
From: Matthew MacKenzie <>
To: Dale Moberg <>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:49:47 -0800
Dale,
My main concern was that this work may be carried out without any
co-operation with some of the OASIS-resident ebXML teams. Given your
explanation and trustworthy opinion, I will hold off judgement here
until I can learn more. I assume this team will meet in San Diego?
Regards,
Matt
Dale Moberg wrote:
>Hi Matt,
>
>I think that the UNCEFACT ATG effort on standardizing the semantic
>elements of a Standard Business Data Header is best construed as leading
>to defining an "in-line" form of MSI API.
>
>That is, there is no IDL defining the MSI interface layers (both to and
>from ebMS and the Business Application). This proposal builds on
>standard EDI practice (in the ISA and GS or UNB and UNH elements) of
>providing information about the collaboration and payload (who is
>involved, what is being done). Applications can then rummage through the
>payload to find those elements that let them figure out what to do with
>the data in a potentially standardized way. So, for example, an EDIFACT
>syntactical binding for Standard Business Data Header already exists. An
>XML schema and namespace for XML document types is one work item in the
>ATG group. One hope is the UBL and OAGIS and similar projects will at
>least leave room in their extensibility provisos so that the header
>element information items can be inserted as needed or desired.
>
>Obviously, there is much more to the MSI than just this-- relaying error
>conditions, offering a status inquiry service, notifying of data
>arrival. This is just a measure that allows XML defined documents to at
>least support inter-protocol-stack layer interfacing and integration
>that is no worse than what is available with EDI.
>
>Presumably, eventually, out-of-band (RPC or local call) IDL
>specifications for MSI will allow for cleaner integration options.
>
>I think this project is largely orthogonal to CPPA myself.
>
>Dale Moberg
>
>
>
>
