ebxml-jc 1/4/2006: Conformance or Compatibility References Across Specs

[Monica J Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

In our call 8 December 2005, Jacques, Kathryn and I started to discuss 
what common language re: compatibility we could have across the original 
set of ebXML specifications.  I had posted a question to the jc on 7 
December 2005 [1].  Jacques indicated that the Committee Draft for ebMS 
v3.0 included language too. Here is what language we currently have:

ebMS v3.0 (0.7) [2]

    "The ebXML infrastructure is composed of several independent, but
    related, components. Specifications for the individual components
    are fashioned as stand-alone documents. Each specification is
    self-contained, meaning a conforming implementation may ignore other
    ebXML specifications. Some references and bindings across ebXML
    specifications should be interpreted as integration help, not
    requirement to integrate. This applies to ebMS also, which may refer
    in particular to CPPA specification, though does not require its
    use: ebMS relies on a concept of "Agreement" the concrete
    representation of which (e.g. CPA or other configuration
    information) is left for implementors to decide."

ebBP v2.0.1 [3]

    "As with all the other specifications in the ebXML framework, an
    ebBP process definition may be effectively used with other
    technologies. From the onset, these specifications have sought to be
    aligned as much as practical and capable of being composed together
    and capable of being used with other technologies. That flexibility
    and composability are important aspects not only to the adoption of
    these standards but their effective use and successful deployment
    into heterogeneous environments and across domains.  In the context
    of this technical specification, Business Collaborations may be
    executed using the ebBP process definition and/or used with other
    technologies. As it relates to the other specifications in the ebXML
    framework, an ebBP process definition supports the loose coupling
    and alignment needed to execute Business Collaborations. This
    specification may also be used when several other software
    components are used to enable the execution of Business
    Collaborations. One example is the use of web services mapped to
    business transactions activities.  The ebBP technical specification
    is used to specify the business process related configuration
    parameters for configuring a BSI to execute and monitor these
    collaborations. The ebBP business semantics and syntax are also
    well-suited to enable definition of modular process building blocks
    that are combined in complex activities to meet user community needs."

ebRegRep 3.0 (RIM and RS): None
ebCPPA v2.1 working draft

    "As defined in the ebXML Business Process Specification
    Schema[ebBPSS], a /Business Partner/ is an entity that engages in
    /Business Transactions/ with another /Business Partner(s)/. The
    /Message-/exchange capabilities of a /Party/ MAY be described by a
    /Collaboration-Protocol Profile (CPP)/.  The /Message-/exchange
    agreement between two /Parties/ MAY be described by a
    /Collaboration-Protocol Agreement (CPA)./  A /CPA /MAY be created by
    computing the intersection of the two /Partners/' /CPPs.  /Included
    in the /CPP/ and /CPA/ are details of transport, messaging, security
    constraints, and bindings to a /Business-Process-Specification/ (or,
    for short, /Process-Specification/)/ /document/ /that contains the/
    /definition of the interactions between the two /Parties/ while
    engaging in a specified electronic /Business Collaboration/.

    This specification contains the detailed definitions of the
    /Collaboration-Protocol Profile/ /(CPP)/ and the
    /Collaboration-Protocol Agreement /(/CPA)/.

    This specification is a component of the suite of ebXML
    specifications."

 Can we get to some minimal or common text that recognizes the business 
benefit of compatibility between these specifications? I think updates 
need to be made to CPPA, considered for addition in RegRep, and possibly 
reworked in ebMS.  Jamie Clark was involved in helping guide the 
language in ebBP.  

Note, I had questioned the language specifically ('may ignore....') in 
the ebMS Committee Draft. I raise the same concern again.

Thanks.

[1] Query on compatibility: 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-jc/email/archives/200512/msg00003.html
[2] ebMS: 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=15688&wg_abbrev=ebxml-msg
[3] ebBP: 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/16058/ebxmlbp-v2.0.1-Spec-pr-r03-en.zip