Marty,
I won't split hairs over the meaning of "integral" so I concede your point. I would like
to clarify, however, that in my discussions I have considered the CPA/CPP and BPSS
specifications separately. As you are aware, the modular nature of the ebXML
architecture allows one to use CPA/CPP without a BPSS, and vice versa, allows use of MHS
without CPA/CPP, allows (future) use of other message handling such as XMLP with CPA/CPP
instead of ebXML MHS, etc. So, it only makes sense for me to consider them separately.
If I were to consider BPSS and CPA/CPP together, my estimate would be even lower for
CPA/CPP due to my lower assessment for the BPSS.
BTW FWIW - I think the original tpaML by itself was a much more workable concept in the
near term than the combined ebXML CPA/CPP and BPSS. Less capable to be sure, but
simplicity has its virtues...
Regards,
Martin W Sachs wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Regarding: "is covered by the BPSS, which is only pointed to by the CPA/CPP
> and is
> not an integral part of the CPA or the CPP." The CPP and CPA contain what
> amounts to a normative reference to a BPSS instance document. That makes
> the BPSS instance document just as integral a part of the CPP/CPA as the
> element in the CPP/CPA that points to it. The BPSS instance document has
> the job of defining the choreography of the message exchanges. Without it,
> we would have had to invent one to embed in the CPA (or to use the
> choreography that came with tpaML).
>
> Regards,
> Marty
>
--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
