Re: [ebxml-cppa] Re: [ebxml-cppa-negot] RE: BSI distinguishingsuccess, failure,and transition conditions

[Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

Matthew MacKenzie wrote:

> 
> As far as BSI being an "abstract" concept, and thus left unspecified --
> I don't agree.  Who made the rule that "abstract" should not be
> specified?  In a sense, a concept is only abstract until it is
> implemented.  
>>>>>>>>>>
The BSI is an abstract concept for architectural discussion.  It is a
concept that there is a way to describe how to do business with a
trading partners, in terms of technical configuration details and
business procedures adn rules.

It is (or should be) 100% implementable in ebXML via the CPP/A, BPSS and
other related mechanisms.  Together,  they make up the business service
interface.

If we make another document that describes a Business Service Interface
to a company,  it will overlap with these artifacts and render them
extraneous.

Other examples of artifacts that describe a business service interface:

a WSDL instance
a eCo.xml instance
....

Duane Nickull