Re: Layers in the WSA (was RE: [Fwd: UN/CEFACT TMG Releases e-Bus ines s Architecture Technical Specification for Public Review])

Duane Nickull <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch
Message-ID <[email protected]>


Burdett, David wrote:
...
> There was a lot of debate as to whether ebXML Messaging should >require< 
> a CPA where I took the view that you can and should separate messaging 
> layer from "business process" layers and that it should be possible to 
> use the messaging layer without any pre-agreement being necessary 
> (although they are possible and sometimes desirable as I discuss later).
+
...
 > 3. The specification, ngotiation, and enforcement of agreements as in
 > ebXML should be possible, but as a layer on top.
 >>>>>>>>>
[DUANE] In a lot of ways,  I like the WSAG approach better where a CPA 
is not explicitly required for every message.  The WS provider still has 
the option of making a CPA ID a required parameter to use the WS interface.

> This means you should be able to do the following:
> 1. Discover information about a service (e.g. using WSDL) which should 
> include information about the additional SOAP features that the service 
> supports or requires (e.g. Reliable Messaging, use of signatures, 
> conversations and choreographies) - see more below.
>>>>>>>>
One missing component I would like to see is semantics.  David - do you 
think there is a way to leverage the semantics of UBL, CCTS for the WSAG?

  > 2. Use that information to send a message to the service that includes
> as features (i.e. SOAP headers), the necessary information for the 
> destination to determine what to do with the message
> 
> 3. The destination, when it receives the message, checks the SOAP 
> headers and other data in the message against its policies as 
> represented in the WSDL (or elsewhere) and decide if the message is OK 
> to process.
>>>>>>>

Doesn't WSCI provide the framework for determining message content?  I 
guess using WSCI is not a requirement of the WSAG however.  This sounds 
very similar to a working group in CEFACT called the Generic Business 
Message Header working group.

The flexability of the WSAG to not specifically require, yet still allow 
this where needed is nice.  I may be writing a chapter for a book on 
[SOAP | Web Services].  I may take this on as a challenge to show SOAP + 
WSDL working with an ebXML CPA.

Duane



-- 
VP Strategic Relations,
Technologies Evangelist
XML Global Technologies
****************************
ebXML software downloads - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.