[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-bp] Re: ebBP 2/7/2005: Updated Combined Summary of BSI-MSI
>> mm1: Section 4: Language Overview >> ================ >> FROM: >> The BSI is completely separate from the Message Service Interface >> (MSI). In particular an MSI MAY be used without a BSI. A CPA, which >> contains a reference to a ebBP definition serves as the basis for the >> configuration of the BSI to enforce the protocol and semantics of the >> ebBP definition, as depicted in Figure 1. > > nickull: I would caution you that there are companies who have prior > use of the term "MSI" in the context of a programmers interface to > ebXML MS software. Accordingly, it may be subject to trademark and/or > copyright. I cannot verify this any further at this time. mm2: So they have a copyright that was originally in the ebMS v2.0 specification? Is it then a valid copyright (I don't know but am only asking) if existed in the ebMS specification under OASIS copyright? Perhaps this is a question for OASIS, Duane. > Discussing concrete interfaces also violates one of the core > principles of ebXML in the architecture which was not to impose any > specific implementation style *where unnecessary* upon those building > software. Prescribing interface based design is one constraint that > is not in alignment with either the core requirements or architecture > of ebXML. mm2: These references are described logically (which was pointed out multiple times in the email discussions that occurred last week). I would propose a specific statement that explicitly states this. As an ancillary note, there are multiple times that interfaces are discussed or referenced in the 0.83 version of the ebXML architecture document. > Accordingly, it may be a better idea to discuss this as the > association with the messaging component of the architecture, not the > interface. Align the functionality abstract of the implementation. > Interface descriptions are probably better handled in a JSR type group > than the core standard. mm2: The logical boundary could be described as such and be broadly understood as an 'interface.' Thank you for your comments.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]