Re: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business Transaction group

[Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com>]

Hi,

This looks like a conversation that could benefit from reciprocal research prior to the
declaration of war.

No one who uses the term "business transaction" should assume that they are using that
(massively overloaded) term in the same way as anyone else who uses that term.

OASIS BTP addresses the system-level problem of inter-organizational coordination of
related operations (i.e. it extends 2PC to the inter-org environment, with some nice
novel features). It has nothing whatsoever to say about how you define
intra-organizational business processes, or how you describe inter-organizational
collaborations at the level of contractually agreed joint processes. It does allow a
segment of process A to be reliably tied in terms of completion (or reversal) to a
segment of process B.

Yours,

Alastair

> Tony/James,
>
>         Haven't seen any takers on this. So let me take a first stab at it. Here it
> goes:
>
>         The BTP TC has very focused charter - to develop XML based *protocol* for
> long lasting transactions across different enterprises over the internet. I
> don't see any conflict with the BTP and the ebXML Business Processes. In
> fact, I think the BTP will compliment and complement (:-)) and make it
> easier for the ebXML business process (in the areas of trx across the
> internet).
>
>         just my 1c (lost the other c in the market :-( in case anybody is
> wondering)
>
>         What are other views ? Also, what exactly is the overlap ? I haven't seen
> the MOU. Is it available on the web or can someone send me a copy ?
>
> cheers & hope you all had a productive July 4th
>
>   |-----Original Message-----
>   |From: tony.am.fletcher@bt.com [mailto:tony.am.fletcher@bt.com]
>   |Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 7:37 AM
>   |To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
>   |Subject: RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business Transaction group
>   |
>   |
>   |Dear All,
>   |
>   |submit BPSS to W3C?
>   |
>   |Seems rather funny to me.  UN/CEFACT is an arm of the United
>   |Nations and you
>   |can't get much more international than that, can you?  For all
>   |the good work
>   |that it has done, at the end of the day W3C is a US based not-for-profit
>   |organisation.  I agree however that there is a practical challenge for
>   |UN/CEFACT to produce output that commands the status at least
>   |that accorded
>   |to W3C outputs.  I also agree with a perception mentioned below that the
>   |W3C, up till now at least, has been seen as tackling the more the syntax
>   |issues, whereas OASIS and other organisations have tackled the
>   |application
>   |of those syntaxes.  The messaging (protocol) area is clearly a grey one
>   |where W3C may have a role to play.  However, I would have thought that in
>   |the business process area UN/CEFACT and OASIS should be able to
>   |stand-alone
>   |under the banner of ebXML.
>   |
>   |Talking of OASIS, I noticed with concern, the post from James Bryce Clark
>   |that indicated that OASIS has started up its own new TC on business
>   |transactions.  I would appreciate it if someone would clarify rationale
>   |behind this, else I hope that OASIS will immediately close this group and
>   |direct the participants to the ebXML business process group instead.  If
>   |there is not a clear statement or swift action from OASIS people
>   |will wonder
>   |what the value of the MoU is.
>   |
>   |Best Regards Tony
>   |
>   |A. M. Fletcher
>   |BTexact Technologies
>   |    01473 644526     +44 1473 644526      m +44 (0) 7740 739490
>   |   Fax: +44
>   |(0) 1473 646291
>   |   Callisto House /261/pp46 (B81-MH), Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath,
>   |Ipswich  IP5 3RE    UK
>   |  tony.am.fletcher@bt.com
>   |
>   |British Telecommunications plc
>   |Registered Office - 81 Newgate Street,  London,  EC1A 7AJ
>   |Registered in England no 1800000
>   |
>   |This electronic message contains information from British
>   |Telecommunications
>   |plc which may be privileged or confidential. The information is
>   |intended to
>   |be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not
>   |the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
>   |distribution
>   |or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have
>   |received this electronic message in error, please notify us by
>   |telephone or
>   |email (to the numbers or address above) immediately.
>   |
>   |
>   |-----Original Message-----
>   |From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com]
>   |Sent: 03 July 2001 23:31
>   |To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
>   |Subject: RE: ebXML in W3C? (was) Re: 2 July BP meeting notes and 16 July
>   |BP meeting notice
>   |
>   |
>   |Hi all,
>   |
>   |     From what I know and hear and talk, W3C is more fundamental in
>   |nature and
>   |OASIS is more "application" oriented. XML, Encryption, DSIG,.. all fit in
>   |the W3C bucket. But things like registry, business process,
>   |ebXML fit in the
>   |OASIS bucket. Of course, there are always exceptions.
>   |
>   |     IMHO, OASIS should be arbitrator on things like WSFL, registries,
>   |... And
>   |like James pointed out, OASIS should establish a relationship/precedence
>   |work with W3C. And yes, it would be a shame if ebXML ends up as
>   |preliminary
>   |work/science projects towards other standards which cannibalize
>   |and nibble
>   |ebXML away :-(
>   |
>   |     just my 1c
>   |
>   |cheers
>   |
>   |
>   |------------------------------------------------------------------
>   |To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
>   |"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
>   |