Re: [ebxml-bp] Comments on NameID/IDRef and UID and Late Bindingand Document References

["Anders W. Tell" <anderst@toolsmiths.se>]

I would like to add the starting point of it all, the ebMS header and 
CPAId,From,To,Service,Action elements, to the discussion. It is there 
where the bindings|attributation starts.

Legally relevant communication = ebMS message  -> ebMS header
   -- [superiority? over] --> Agreement that may be a CPP/A 
--[superiority over] --> BPSS

Adding a superiroity link from BPSS back to governing  parameter would 
create a "superiority" loop, which would be difficult to handle,define.

/Anders

Dale Moberg wrote:

>A given software module might make use of a BPSS instance and the
>CPPs or CPAs that reference it. Nevertheless, I agree with Monica
>that the CPP/As reference the BPSS, and the BPSS instances abstract away
>from
>CPPA details. 
>
>Otherwise, the abstraction layering of the ebXML framework would be
>muddied up.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David RR Webber [mailto:david@drrw.info] 
>Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:11 PM
>To: Monica J. Martin
>Cc: Dale Moberg; martin.me.roberts@bt.com; ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] Comments on NameID/IDRef and UID and Late
>Binding and Document References
>
>
>Monica,
>
>My understanding is that the BPSS also draws
>the messaging control factors and details from
>the CPA.  So in effect - the CPPA selects
>the BPSS, but the BPSS engine needs to
>reference both together.
>
>Thanks, DW.
>
>  
>
>>mm1: Dave, the CPPA references the BPSS instance used, rather than the
>>other way around.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
/////////////////////////////////////
/ Business Collaboration Toolsmiths /
/ website: <www.toolsmiths.se>      /
/ email: <anderst@toolsmiths.se>    /
/ phone: +46 8 545 885 87           /
/ mobile: +46 70 546 66 03          /
/////////////////////////////////////