Business Messages Workgroup 2005 Spring Meeting Agenda 1300-1305 Introductions 1305-1330 Review of new schemas 1330-1400 Invoice Response 1400-1500 AS2 1500-1520 Break 1520-1540 Namespaces 1540-1600 Joint Technology Plan (JTP) 1600-1700 New business Review of New Schemas PipelineSchedule PipelineNominationCreate PipelineNominationChange PipelineNominationResponse Business Context Conformance to existing architecture, NDRs Posted to PIDX Website since Jan 7. Revision posted on Mar 11 Vote on Approval Invoice Response BPWG Findings Completion of supplier/buyer workflow True e-enablement Schema Changes Required Acceptance/Dispute of entire document (header level StatusCode) Elimination of LineStatusCode Eliminate all „unnecessary‟ elements? Invoice Response What is required? Buyer, Seller Invoice Number, Date Accept/Reject Reviewer Name, Identifier Free form text Line Items Free form text LineResponseReasonCode? Enumerated? AS2 Review of business case, requirements Activities since last conference Interoperability certification Attachments Usage profile Concerns Vote AS2 Business Case To lower the TRP entry barrier to PIDX standards adoption Requirements Authentication Authorization Confidentiality Data Integrity Message Identification Non-repudiation of origin Non-repudiation of receipt Reliable Messaging Error Handling Support for binary attachments AS2 Interoperability certification Drummond Group www.ebusinessready.org www.drummondgroup.com Attachments Optional product test for Drummond interoperability AS2 Usage profile In order to satisfy PIDX TRP requirements, AS2 implementations must Digitally sign message content Use MDNs Use MDNs asynchronously Digitally sign MDNs Encrypt Standard method is S/MIME over HTTP No statement on approved CAs, self-signed certificates AS2 Concerns Global uptake „Shopping List‟ of TRP standards Growing prevalence of web services HTTP vs HTTPS Other? Vote? BREAK! Namespaces What they are: XML namespaces provide a simple method for qualifying element and attribute names used in XML documents by associating them with namespaces identified by URI references (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/) In other words… All of these elements “belong” to PIDX …eventually allowing for… mixed content documents Namespaces Basic rules The namespace declaration is considered to apply to the element where it is specified and to all elements within the content of that element, unless overridden by another namespace declaration (translation - the children inherit the parent‟s namespace) A default namespace is considered to apply to the element where it is declared (if that element has no namespace prefix), and to all elements with no prefix within the content of that element (translation - whatever is declared as xmlns=“someURI” is the default - anything with no prefix is in this namespace) A targetNamespace specifies the namespace for the vocabulary defined by the schema. Namespaces In the XSD <schema targetNamespace="http://www.api.org/pidXML /v1.2" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:pidx="http://www.api.org/pidXML/v1.2 " elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" version="1.2"> Namespaces In the instance (XML) document <pidx:Invoice xmlns:pidx=“http://www.api.org/pidXML/v1” xmlns=“http://www.api.org/pidXML/v1” xmlns:xsd=“www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema”> The prefix is arbitrary, the namespace URI is not - could as easily be: <bob:Invoice xmlns:bob“http://www.api.org/pidXML/v1” xmlns=“http://www.api.org/pidXML/v1” xmlns:xsd=“www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema”> Namespaces PIDX has chosen to use the „pidx‟ prefix prefix everything Time to rethink prefixing? Joint Technology Plan RNIF - AS2 Bridging RNIF Service Header Delivery Header AS2 AS2-From AS2-To Specs to be researched, recommendation put on PIDX website New Business Standards maintenance and refinement Bill of Lading MSDS Questions/Comments?
Pages to are hidden for
"Business Invoice Free - PowerPoint"Please download to view full document