Re: [ebxml-bp] Considerations for v20

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Anders,

Reference the point below on XPath and EDIFACT.

We have solved this in CAM by using the ContentReference
section - so you can freely reference EDI content as if it
was structured as an XML-style hierarchy (which of course
it almost is - but each new EDI line represents another piece
of the hierarchy...)

So - maybe a way around this is to suggest a CAM template is
provided for legacy payloads such as EDI - so that they can
be consistently referenced then in the BPSS XPath expressions.
People could of course use other means as part of a BPSS
implementation to parse a payload - and make that available
in memory - but at least you'd then have a reference illustrative
approach.

DW.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anders W. Tell" <anderst@toolsmiths.se>
To: <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] Considerations for v20


> >* Focus on the "Business" side of the protocol and not so much on
> >technical features such a XPath.
>
> > Xpath is a technical choice to be used in a condition language (shell).
> > Presumably the real semantics is found in the expressions referenced. Or
> > am I missing your point here? Perhaps you are calling for more
> > illustrations of usage of condition languages?
>
> Yes, technology neutrality regarding choice of condition language is a
good idea
> and since EDIFACT must be supported it may be difficult to map business
rule
> semantics depending on format.
>