Re: [ebxml-cppa] FW: Alignment with CPA 2.0 Specification for Teleconference Friday May 9, 8 AM Pacific.

[Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>]

It is one thing to say that each ebxml spec SHOULD be able to be used 
independently of the others and quite another to say that an ebXML spec 
SHALL NOT provide services or linkages to other ebXML specs.  Messaging, 
CPPA, and BPSS are a suite of specifications which provide a complete 
messaging service when used together.

The CPPA specification already includes the necessary permissions to use 
alternatives to Messaging and BPSS though we don't provide replacement 
definitions for the linkages to alternative specifications.

There also has not been any fiat that makes it "illegal" for the 
negotiation specification to describe its protocol using a BPSS instance 
document, as we do.

I do think that it would be beneficial, in the interest of CPPA 
simplification for the CPPA team to ensure that it does not contain 
REQUIRED function that is not required in MSG. I'm not sure that there are 
similar possibilities for CPPA simplification with regard to BPSS.

Regards,
Marty

At 08:35 AM 5/8/2003 -0700, Dale Moberg wrote:
>Please consider the following question for tomorrow's meeting--
>
>"What should be the specific points of alignment and what are the
>degrees of freedom for BPSS and CPPA for preserving the constraint of
>"loosely coupled but highly aligned"?
>
>Other agenda: Announcements, SubTeam Reports, Progress Reports, Other
>issues.
>
>Thanks
>Dale Moberg
>
>
>Dial in: 877-204-8750
>
>International +1 706-679-5113)
>
>Pass code: 4806272648
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: martin.me.roberts@bt.com [mailto:martin.me.roberts@bt.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 7:00 AM
>To: UN/CEFACT TMG BPSS Editing Team
>Subject: Alignment with CPA 2.0 Specification
>
>
>I have spent a little time looking at the CPA 2.0 XML definitions and it
>is clear that there are more points of contact with the BPSS 1.05 that
>just the issue of Role.  The CPA allows for overiding of default BPSS
>BusinessTransaction and BusinessTransactionActivity parameters such as
>isTamperproof and TimeToPerform.  Some of the CPA 1.0 use enumerations
>that are in the 1,05 specification and not in the 1.0 spec.
>
>I would like to understand what the position on the ebXML objectives of
>a set of loosely coupled but highly aligned specifications is.  I feel
>that it is important to see this principle preserved for BPSS 1.1 at
>least and then discuss a new base line for a new set of specs based
>around changes to the underlying concepts.
>
>Martin Roberts
>xml designer,
>BT Exact
>e-mail: martin.me.roberts@bt.com
>tel: +44(0) 1473 609785  clickdial
>fax: +44(0) 1473 609834
>Intranet Site :http://twiki.btlabs.bt.co.uk/twiki
>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to the uncefact-tmg-bpss listserve. To
>unsubscribe send an email to lyris@listman.disa.org with the following
>subject: Unsubscribe uncefact-tmg-bpss
>If you do not receive confirmation of your unsubscribe request
>please notify postmaster@disa.org to report the problem.

*************************************
Martin Sachs
standards architect
Cyclone Commerce
msachs@cyclonecommerce.com