[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] Re: [ebxml-iic] Simple trading partner configurationfor ebMS
Marty, Do you have a minimal CPA example handy? -Matt On Monday, Aug 26, 2002, at 05:57 America/Vancouver, Martin W Sachs wrote: > > > > > > Matt, > > Your suggestion would work. My only concern is that the subset schemas > would not be conformant with the CPPA specification if they omitted > elements or attributes that have minOccurs greater than zero. > > My suggestion for the subset profiles was to define "prototype" CPAs > that > omit what is not needed and has minOccurs="0", and have values already > filled in that are not to be changed. The schema would remain the > approved > CPPA schema. Using separate namespaces is a good idea. > > These subset CPAs would be CPA templates that also would conform to the > future automated negotiation specification. As with any CPA template, > the > subset CPA templates could be described by the automated-negotiation > Negotiation Descriptor Document to show what elements and attributes > are > modifiable. So, doing it the way I described would also be conformant > with > the automated negotiation specification when it is approved. This would > also facilitate using a CPA composition tool to compose the subset > CPAs. > > Regards, > Marty > > *********************************************************************** > ************** > > Martin W. Sachs > IBM T. J. Watson Research Center > P. O. B. 704 > Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 > 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 > Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM > Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com > *********************************************************************** > ************** > > > > Matthew MacKenzie > <matt@xmlglobal. To: Martin W > Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS > com> cc: Dale Moberg > <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>, "Cppalist (E-mail)" > > <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>, ebxml-iic@lists.oasis-open.org > 08/25/2002 10:23 Subject: Re: > [ebxml-cppa] Re: [ebxml-iic] Simple trading partner > PM configuration for ebMS > > > > > > > Marty, > > Your comments are right on the money. I don't really want to start > flooding the world with more standards, but I really want to see a > simple and short TPA in the spirit of the schema I just sent out. The > "profile" concept is interesting. I would like to see a set of > profiles in the form of a few schemas which use the core CPPA schema as > a type library. Each schema would have a slightly different namespace, > so that a CPPA implementation would be able to understand which profile > is in use. > > Does that jive with what you were thinking? > > Cheers, > > Matt > > On Sunday, August 25, 2002, at 12:43 PM, Martin W Sachs wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> Matt, >> >> Thanks for the proposal. I'm sure that the team will give it serious >> attention. >> >> I have a concerrn that publishing a normative subset schema may >> confuse >> more than it will help. It is not clear that only one subset schema >> would >> be sufficient. I have the following thoughts. >> >> What may be the right subset schema for your customer set is not >> necessarily the right one for other customer sets. Another approach, >> which >> has worked well in other feature-rich standards, is to define one or >> more >> "CPPA Profiles" that apply to different customer sets, industry >> verticals, >> etc. Such a profile defines those features that enterprises in a given >> "sub-industry" must support. It can specify values for those elements >> and >> attributes are the same in every CPP or CPA in the group and list >> those >> features whose cardinality includes minOccurs="0" that are not to be >> used. >> Each profile would include CPP and CPA Templates (a prototype of the >> subset >> CPP or CPA) that expose the required features and leave out everything >> not >> needed whose cardinality includes minOccurs="0". These profiles could >> be >> developed by the appropriate industry groupings, coordinating with the >> CPPA >> team. The could be published either by the individual groupings or by >> OASIS >> as technical reports. With this approach, there is no need to have >> subset >> schemas since the subset CPPs and CPAs would validate against the >> standard >> CPPA schema. Also, by not omitting CPPA elements and attributes whose >> cardinality is greater than zero, standard CPA deployment tools and >> run- >> time middleware would be able to handle the subset CPAs. >> >> A CPP-CPA composition tool could be designed to be tailored for >> profiles >> and to show the CPP or CPA author minimal complexity. Its GUI would >> present to the author only those elements and attributes that require >> decisions for the selected profile. Elements and attributes of >> cardinality >> minOccurs="0" that the profile defines as absent would not be shown to >> the >> author. Also, elements and attributes whose values are fixed by the >> profile would not be shown to the author. The tool could also include >> a >> feature to be used for defining new profiles. Profile support should >> be a >> good value-added opportunity for CPPA tool vendors. >> >> Regards, >> Marty >> >> >> >> ********************************************************************** >> * >> ************** >> >> Martin W. Sachs >> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center >> P. O. B. 704 >> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 >> 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 >> Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM >> Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com >> ********************************************************************** >> * >> ************** >> >> >> >> Matthew MacKenzie >> <matt@xmlglobal. To: Dale Moberg >> <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com> >> com> cc: >> ebxml-iic@lists.oasis-open.org, "Cppalist (E-mail)" <ebxml- >> >> cppa@lists.oasis-open.org> >> 08/24/2002 12:16 Subject: [ebxml-cppa] >> Re: [ebxml-iic] Simple trading partner configuration >> PM for ebMS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dale, >> >> Here you go, The schema and a sample is attached. I have to say that >> this schema came to be out of a perception that CPA is a bit too >> complex for the average user. My company has fully implemented CPA >> v2, >> so the design of CPA isn't really at issue. I've recently had to >> maintain 24+ CPAs, and I can tell you that it is a serious pain. >> >> Maybe this group could consider a Simple CPA schema, which is a subset >> of the full schema. I believe the docbook guys did this as well to >> try >> and make it easier to get users feet wet. 70/30 or even 60/40 is >> probably the kind of markup reduction I'm thinking of. Maybe schema >> modularization is the name of the game. You can decide. >> >> Regards, >> >> Matt >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Friday, August 23, 2002, at 06:38 PM, Dale Moberg wrote: >> >>> Hi Matt, >>> >>> I skimmed the schema you provided. I guess it >>> is one of the "70/30" optimization gambits. >>> Anders from OpenEbXML has proposed a similar >>> lightweight schema within the JSR 157 group. >>> >>> As such, I think it might be worthwhile sending >>> to the ebxml CPPA TC for consideration. It >>> is especially interesting in that it might promote >>> adoption of profile/protocol-binding technologies, >>> because of its minimalisticYetEssential view of >>> configuring the b2b side of the MSH. >>> >>> So the advantage I see is that it is geared for the >>> ebXML MSH (it may ignore some of the PKI support >>> the security risk document recommended--I would >>> think about adding that in, at least optionally). >>> >>> A political problem is that it more or less dispenses with the BPSS >>> hooks (and so becomes choreography/flow/orchestration/process >>> independent). That may be feasible via the modularity doctrine, >>> however. >>> >>> Would you be willing to cross post the example and schema >>> to ebXML-CPPA? Maybe a few words in support of a CPA-lite >>> could accompany the post? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Dale Moberg >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:matt@xmlglobal.com] >>> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 4:07 PM >>> To: ebxml-iic@lists.oasis-open.org >>> Subject: [ebxml-iic] Simple trading partner configuration for ebMS >>> >>> >>> Team, >>> >>> As we discussed during the F2F today, I've put together a simple CPA >>> replacement that has the bare minimum configuration information for 2 >>> parties. These could be what we use for specifying MSH configuration >>> for conformance and interoperability. It also could form a CPA >>> replacement, which is designed over time to meet vendor needs as per >>> discussions we had today (Myself, Hatem@IPNet, Jeff@Cyclone). >>> >>> If you're interested in this development for use beyond testing, >>> please >>> help me out by supplying feedback -- is there anything missing that a >>> good MSH needs out of a TPA? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Matt >> >> >> #### tpa.xsd has been removed from this note on August 25 2002 by >> Martin W >> Sachs >> #### tpaSample.xml has been removed from this note on August 25 2002 >> by >> Martin W Sachs >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC