OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-cppa message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] Issue: should BusinessTransactionCharacteristics bemade zero or one in future CPPA schemas (v 2.1 and 3.x)

>moberg: ....When using BPSS (especially 2.0), and when not changing any values from
>those in the BPSS instance, the BusinessTransactionCharacteristics
>attributes end up repeating information in the BPSS instance. In
>addition, the QOS parameters needed for a message service are generally
>independently documented in specialized sections of the DocExchange
>element or in the Transport, so the "abstract" features of the BTC tend
>to just summarize the real configuration details.
mm1: Not a mention of for/against, I'd say that one of the values of the 
CPP/A is that it can help glue together the business process and the 
messaging, via views into both. As we've already seen, there is more 
work to be done that respects those business requirements that transform 
into technical configuration and messaging constraints and details. I 
think we should weigh simplicity (XInclude, references back to the 
process definition, etc) against the basic premise.  As we've seen in 
ebBP, having, for example, the patterns only referenced rather than part 
of the schema definition lead to misunderstanding and misuse.  We should 
look at the various aspects around optimization in a similar fashion. 

>Since we are trying to wrap up changes, errata, and ebMS 3.0 support in
>the CPPA specification, I would like the TC to review this optionality
>issue and decide whether we should change the cardinality to allow
>omission of the element when it is not really needed. (and document when
>that is).
mm1: This is reasonable.

>I recall this issue was raised when considering how to flatten the XML
>hierarchy of CPPs and CPAs (which most agree would make it simpler to
>read if not to use!). I think flattening could be done but it would be a
>departure from conserving the structure of CPPA 2.0 instances. Since
>CPPA instances are probably headed toward being something that are never
>"seen" in editors, but only imported and exported by software,
>flattening is not something I have heard much about lately. If you think
>we should reconsider this for the transition to committee draft from
>editor draft, please discuss on the list.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]