I don't know the PIPs which Arvola is going to include, but I'd like to
see
some Service and Action BIndings related to security, preferably one
for
non-repudiation, one for secure transport and one for Digital Envelope.
I volunteer for that, if Arvola is not planning for these. I have
some working
samples against the DTD version of CPA schema which I'll have to move
to schema version.
-hima
Dale Moberg wrote:
Hmmh.
OK, it might be nice to show the more complex
example with two bindings in it.Any
other reactions?The
worked out RN exampleshould
be OK. I will still check with
Karl on how to handle any linkage of references.The
BPSS 1.0 version was DTD only,
as I recall. I
get complaints from developers nowbecause
XMLDsig schema (which we cite) is not
up to date with respect to the schema standard!Dale
Dale: I was hoping to borrow or
adapt one of the BPSS instances that RosettaNet has used to model one of
the existing PIPs (as used in an earlier validation test), based on the
1.0 BPSS specification. Instead of having two
CPA's, I was planning to use one CPA but two service bindings within the
CPA. Is it possible that two trading partners may want to use the asynchronous
response mode if the request is expected to take a very long time, and
to use the synchronous response mode for a similarly structured request
that can be expected to be processed instantaneously? Alternatively, I
can use two different business processes, one requiring synchronous response
and the other asynchronous response. Anyway,
I am open to suggestions on how to structure the examples. Regards,-Arvola
-----Original
Message-----
From: Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
To: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>;
ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
<ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Tuesday, December 11,
2001 8:15 AM
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] Updated
schema with annotations to motivate the recentchanges
Arvola,I
think those are excellent examples to have to illustrate
how the specifications hang together.Will
using the BPSS instance cause any problems since
they may submit their changesafter
us? Possibly
if we simply include a disclaimer thatthe
BPSS schema/dtd referenced is not
necessarily the most current...However,
it would be best if the
possibly not yet approved schema
for the BPSS versionwere
used. Maybe,as
long as we don't say itis
normative it would be OK. I
will ask Karl Besgt how any such referencesto
unapproved (not yet approved) standardsare
to be handled.Any
other thoughts from anyone?
I like including both CPPs. Would
we benefit from having 3
CPPs to illustrate how two
pairs of CPPs support the two CPAs?
(That is, one CPP whose PartyInfo has asynchronoustransport
capabilities only, and
a contrasting CPP with a PartyInfo for synchronous?)Dale
Attached please find another version of the updated schema
that includes annotations explaining the recently proposed changes. I
like to submit the updated CPP and CPA examples once we have agreed on
the schema changes. For completeness, I like to include a BPSS instance
that is referenced from the CPP and the CPA, using RosettaNet's PIP3A4
as an example. In fact, rather that including
just one CPP, I like to include a CPP for each of the two parties whose
collaboration agreement is documented in the CPA. Within
the CPA, I like to show two service bindings, one using synchronous response
and the other using asynchronous response. -Arvola
|