RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business Transaction group

[Eric Newcomer <eric.newcomer@iona.com>]

>One area that needs
>to be addressed is that similar to the area of two-phase commits.  What are
>the semantics for check pointing and doing commits as distributed
>transactions are done?

We had investigated this area in the OMG as a follow on to the OTS work (on
which JTS/JTA/EJB is based), and found a general adaptation of the OTS
coordinator idea to be relevant.  Everyone agrees 2PC is too strict for this
type of business transaction coordination -- what the extended transaction
model spec (adopted by OMG last January) does is allow pluggable protocols to
replace the strict 2PC for exactly this type of thing.

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark A. Hale [mailto:mark.hale@interwoven.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 2:36 PM
To: Krishna Sankar; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org;
business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business Transaction group


Interesting thread.  :)

The larger issue is that the term 'protocol' is overloaded.  The boundaries
between business processes, messaging, and transports is blurred.

The Business Transaction Protocol addresses concerns that arise in  between
business processes and messaging.  In BTP, the semantics for long running
transactions (disconnected transactions of unspecified duration) are being
defined that sit between conversations and messaging.  One area that needs
to be addressed is that similar to the area of two-phase commits.  What are
the semantics for check pointing and doing commits as distributed
transactions are done?  This is not defined at the business process level or
in messaging.

I belong to the BTP group and am not opposed to this material being rolled
into other efforts.  However, I do think that smaller, problem-defined
working group offer some benefits as new material is added.  BTP has several
tasks forces to look for messaging, business process, and security
compatibility.  Also, the working group is operating under a six month
charter to get a starting point in place.

   Thanks,

   Mark



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 8:47 AM
> To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org; business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business Transaction group
>
>
> Eric,
>
> 	Agreed on your thoughts on convergence and single standard.
> I would modify
> it to a set of standards. Also I see your point to put all the
> efforts under
> the ebXML - kind of branding. I would look for leverage rather than
> convergence.
>
> 	W3C is a mighty fine standard, and of course has a lot of
> influence. It
> comes from being a horizontal standards body providing fundamental
> technology directions. We should not turn it into a vertical as well. That
> is where IMHO, OASIS comes in the picture - set of vertical standards in
> various domains based on the fundamentals from W3C.
>
> 	You are right, W3C is an international standard and in
> almost all the
> groups I was in, there are folks from all over the world.
>
> 	cheers
>   |-----Original Message-----
>   |From: Eric Newcomer [mailto:eric.newcomer@iona.com]
>   |Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 7:18 AM
>   |To: Krishna Sankar; business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org
>   |Subject: RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business Transaction group
>   |
>   |
>   |It would be good to promote BTP to W3C along with ebXML and RosettaNet
>   |requirements to improve market traction and acceptance.  The
>   |more we can do to
>   |promote convergence on a single set of standards, the better
>   |chance we have of
>   |widespread adoption of the work.  In my opinion W3C still is the most
>   |influential standards setting organization for the Web -- and
> despite the
>   |comments from our colleage at BT, it's not U.S. based but
>   |international, with
>   |sponsorship in Europe through Inria and similar sponsorship in Japan.
>   |
>   |Eric
>   |
>   |-----Original Message-----
>   |From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com]
>   |Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 9:39 AM
>   |To: business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org
>   |Subject: FW: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business Transaction group
>   |
>   |
>   |
>   |FYI
>   |-----Original Message-----
>   |From: Bob Haugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
>   |Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 5:02 AM
>   |To: 'Krishna Sankar'; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
>   |Cc: business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org
>   |Subject: RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business Transaction group
>   |
>   |
>   |The ebXML BPSS and UN/CEFACT UMM also have a
>   |transaction protocol and transaction patterns.  It is also
>   |the same as the RosettaNet transaction protocol, and
>   |the lower-level business signals that enable the transaction
>   |protocol are also embedded in the ebXML Message Service.
>   |The transaction patterns are declarative.  I suspect the
>   |reason even ebXML people don't recognize this is that
>   |they have focused on the procedural choreography aspects
>   |of the BPSS.
>   |
>   |So I think there is a possibility of a major conflict, although
>   |I have not read the BTP protocol.
>   |
>   |-Bob Haugen
>   |
>   |P.S. I probably can't successfully post to the Oasis BT list,
>   |so Krishna, maybe you can forward this message.
>   |
>   |-----Original Message-----
>   |From:	Krishna Sankar [SMTP:ksankar@cisco.com]
>   |Sent:	Thursday, July 05, 2001 1:15 AM
>   |To:	tony.am.fletcher@bt.com; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
>   |Cc:	business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org
>   |Subject:	RE: ebXML in W3C?  and OASIS Business Transaction group
>   |
>   |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
>   |  |
>   |
>   |
>   |------------------------------------------------------------------
>   |To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
>   |"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
>   |
>   |
>   |