RE: [ebxml-msg] better terminology ?

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ebxml-msg] better terminology ?
From: "Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, April 17, 2007 7:13 pm
To: "ebXML Messaging TC" <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>

Editorial (terminology) suggestion:

We have been dancing around the notion of "message channel" for a while 
and chose the term "MPF" (message partition flow) mainly to avoid some
possible 
confusion with CPA DeliveryChannel. 

After more talking with Dale and a few of you, it appears that the
concern was
overblown, while the name "message partition flow" is rather confusing,
as 
shown by some recent informal discussion with users.
(the reason we did not get any comment of the kind "why didn't you use
the term channel
instead of MPF" during PR1, could just be that no one realized this is
about channels !!)   

Bringing back the term "channel" has the advantage that users relate
easily to
this well-known concept (e.g. as described in several messaging
reference work such as
http://www.enterpriseintegrationpatterns.com/StoreInLibrary.html )

Instead of waiting for some comment on this to be filed during a second
PR, 
I prefer to suggest the following renaming today:

Message Partition Flow --> Message Partition Channel
MPF --> MPC
Schema: @mpf --> @mpc 

In 2.2.3:
MEP Channel Binding -> MEP Transport Channel binding (these channels are
lower level)
MEP Transport Binding -> MEP Transport Protocol binding

Jacques

ebxml-msg message