[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: (Per Mark Hale),RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS BusinessTransactiongroup
Bob Haugen wrote: > > I'd be interested in a dispassionate conversation about how > > those who know both BTP and the ebXML-BP + UMM transaction > > protocol think the two compare and contrast. (The comparers > > would need to understand the UMM transaction patterns as > > well as BPSS, and don't get hung up on choreography details.) and I would add that the comparers would need to understand the BTP protocol, which is why I made the comment that some *reciprocal* research would be a good idea before declaring war. There will be a draft of the BTP spec by the time of the call proposed. In the meantime let me highlight a couple of BTP features that do not seem to figure in the ebXML work and its references, on a very hasty first reading: multiple arbitrary content participants (reversible operation groups) multi-party coordination ability to coordinate data- and operation-oriented participants, including XA resources indefinite number of application exchanges within context of a transaction transaction propagation across a tree of services termination protocol BTP would naturally lodge underneath a business process definition. It dumbly provides the facilities for applications (including workflows) to automate some of the exchanges required to synchronize and "atomize" related actions in multiple services. I very much support Mark Hale's diplomatic work to create a dialogue. I believe that the outcome of this discussion will be that ebXML may wish to use, reference, compare or contrast BTP, but that BTP has a much wider remit and independent application than ebXML's use of "transactions". The workflow sub-committee of BTP has been working for a few weeks on an appendix for our specification on relationship of BTP to business process management initiatives, so I hope that the proposed conference call will help in that section's finalization. Yours humbly, from the benighted depths of ignorance, Alastair PS I knew we'd get into trouble using the term "business transactions". Too many meanings for too many groups. Krishna Sankar wrote: > Hi all, > > We need some passion otherwise the conversation could get pretty morose :-) > > On a serious note, I support David's suggestions. My humble suggestion is > also that the conversation should revolve around how can one leverage the > other. Crisp definitions and feature set would help here. > > If the BTP folks are working on a slice, let them finish the work and then > ebXML can leverage the work. It is not a compare and contrast but how both > can fill-in the pieces of a puzzle and who has which pieces (sorry for the > pieces analogy, was just doing Lego with my son :-)) > > cheers > > |-----Original Message----- > |From: Welsh, David [mailto:David.Welsh@nordstrom.com] > |Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 5:42 PM > |To: 'Bob Haugen'; 'James Bryce Clark'; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org > |Cc: mark.hale@interwoven.com; karl.best@oasis-open.org; 'Peter Furniss'; > |'Eric Newcomer' > |Subject: RE: (Per Mark Hale), RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business > |Transactiongroup > | > | > |I hear the term 'business transaction' used by both groups and > |at the same time statements claiming no duplicate effort, yet > |without specific details ! So in the interest of clarity, I'd > |also welcome hearing objective coversation where both sides show > |how the 2 compare and contrast as 'BUSINESS > |transactions'. > |Thanks > |-Dave > | > | > |> -----Original Message----- > |> From: Bob Haugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com] > |> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 5:25 PM > |> To: 'James Bryce Clark'; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org > |> Cc: mark.hale@interwoven.com; karl.best@oasis-open.org; > |> 'Peter Furniss'; > |> 'Eric Newcomer' > |> Subject: RE: (Per Mark Hale), RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business > |> Transactiongroup > |> > |> > |> I'd be interested in a dispassionate conversation about how > |> those who know both BTP and the ebXML-BP + UMM transaction > |> protocol think the two compare and contrast. (The comparers > |> would need to understand the UMM transaction patterns as > |> well as BPSS, and don't get hung up on choreography details.) > |> > |> In other words, set aside anything accusatory, e.g. words > |> like "conflict" and precedence and MOUs and see how the two > |> initiatives might relate. Then we can get all mad at each > |> other later.8-) > |> > |> My first impressions were that BTP covers a lot of the same ground, > |> even to the same idea of transactional behavior from the viewpoint > |> of the initiator. As UN/CEFACT ebWG gets into collaboration > |> patterns, > |> the area of overlap will be larger. > |> > |> We've just had Jean-Jacques Dubray do a detailed comparison and > |> binding between ebXML BPSS and BPML. Something similar needs > |> to be done with the other collaboration choreography initiatives. > |> > |> -Bob Haugen > |> > |> (What was that quote about standards being wonderful because > |> there were so many of them?) > |> > |> -----Original Message----- > |> From: James Bryce Clark [SMTP:jamie.clark@mmiec.com] > |> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 5:53 PM > |> To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org > |> Cc: mark.hale@interwoven.com; karl.best@oasis-open.org > |> Subject: (Per Mark Hale), RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS > |> Business Transactiongroup > |> > |> Forwarding this to the BP list from Mark Hale's post to the BTP list. > |> > |> At 03:32 PM 7/5/01, Mark A. Hale wrote: > |> >Karl, > |> > > |> >I would just like to further support your stance that this > |> is not duplicate > |> >effort with ebXML. > |> > > |> >As an organization that endorsed the BTP submission and also > |> being the ebXML > |> >POC co-chair at the same time, I reviewed the submission as > |> being entirely > |> >complementary to ebXML. I fielded calls from other ebXML > |> organizations in > |> >the interim between submission and the start date in March. > |> Most of the > |> >discussion emphasized that this technology does integrate into ebXML. > |> >However, ebXML was on a schedule for May and it was not feasible to > |> >introduce the topic and maintain the final date. ebXML has > |> been considered > |> >from the start. Conversely, BTP is nearing the end of its > |> short life-cycle > |> >and I would offer that we evaluate its direction at the > |> final f2f to be held > |> >later this month. > |> > > |> >I do not have post privileges on the ebxml-bp mailing list. > |> > > |> > Thanks, > |> > > |> > Mark > |> > |> > |> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > |> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > |> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org > |> > |> > |> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > |> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > |> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org > |> > | > |------------------------------------------------------------------ > |To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > |"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org > |
begin:vcard n:Green;Alastair J. tel;cell:+44 795-841 2107 tel;fax:+44 207-670 1785 tel;work:+44 207-670 1780 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.choreology.com org:Choreology Ltd adr:;;13 Austin Friars;London;;EC2N 2JX;England version:2.1 email;internet:alastair.green@choreology.com title:Managing Director fn:Alastair J. Green end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC