ebxml-msg — archive

Re: [ebxml-msg] FW: [ebxml-dev] ebXML MS Headers and Application layerprocessing

From: System
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:52:00 -0000

 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 <[email protected]>
To: Dale Moberg <[email protected]>
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
>
>
>
>