Re: Marketing and publicity

[Sanjay Dalal <sanjay@bea.com>]

A small suggestion...could we try to get the spec. out first and then start
on any other initiatives? Definitely, we would like to get involved in that
initiative from BEA. But, let's set our priorities first. At this stage,
after browsing recent mail communication, I am getting worried about us
completing the spec. in time.

regards,
sanjay

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alastair Green" <alastair.green@choreology.com>
To: "Edward Cobb" <ecobb@bea.com>; "OASIS BT TC"
<business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org>; "Krishna Sankar"
<ksankar@cisco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Marketing and publicity


> Hi Ed,
>
> Mark Little chairs that JSR's expert group, if I understand correctly. And
he is
> involved in the proposal for a new JSR, so I believe that potential
intersection
> has been considered.
>
> I think the OMG extensions for OTS (Activity Service) spec has a certain
overlap
> with BTP in one potential use, but is at a lower level (no assumed
transaction
> model or coordination protocol), and could be used perhaps more profitably
for
> application-level protocols for specific trading interactions (in my
personal
> view), rather than for general purpose commitment a la BTP.
>
> Alastair
>
> Edward Cobb wrote:
>
> >          There is currently a Java JSR for an activity service (JSR 95)
> > which IBM is leading. No visible output yet but it is based on a similar
> > OMG specification for extended transactions. You should look at both
before
> > deciding to submit something new.
> >
> > At 07:31 AM 10/9/2001 +0100, Alastair Green wrote:
> > >Hi Krishna,
> > >
> > >I'm glad you agree. A JSR is what we had in mind. I've talked to a few
> > >other TC
> > >members about this, and I think there's a fair amount of interest in a
> > >JaXTA. I'd
> > >very much welcome your involvement in proposing this -- we should be
able
> > >to benefit
> > >from the SAML experience.
> > >
> > >If anyone else is interested in such an initiative why don't they send
me
> > >a mail,
> > >and we can take it from there.
> > >
> > >Yours,
> > >
> > >Alastair
> > >
> > >Krishna Sankar wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alastair,
> > > >
> > > >         You are right. A cohesive, consistent, easy to use and
standard
> > > Java API
> > > > would accelerate the prelevant use of the BTP APIs.
> > > >
> > > >         For Java APIs one should go thru the JCP (Java Community
> > > Process). One
> > > > should initiate a JSR as per
http://www.jcp.org/jsr/overview/index.jsp.  I
> > > > just initiated one for the OASIS SAML. If you want, we can work on
one for
> > > > BTP as well. Pl let me know.
> > > >
> > > >         cheers
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Alastair Green [mailto:alastair.green@choreology.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 10:53 AM
> > > > To: OASIS BT TC
> > > > Subject: Marketing and publicity
> > > >
> > > > In our view the greatest aid to market acceptance of BTP would be a
> > > > standardized Java API, which would immediately help intuitive
> > > > understanding and remove fear of usage complexity.
> > > >
> > > > The spec addresses the needs of implementers, and not of the user
> > > > community, which is inevitable for an interop spec. The likely
community
> > > > of implementers is narrow, and presumably able to handle the
> > > > "complexity".
> > > >
> > > > We view such an API as outside the scope of this OASIS BTP TC, as
> > > > currently constituted, and not really the type of thing OASIS
> > > > specializes in anyway, I suspect.
> > > >
> > > > Alastair
> >
> > **************************************************************
> > Edward Cobb, Vice President, Architecture & Standards
> > BEA Systems, Inc., 2315 North First St., San Jose, CA 95131
> > Tel: 408-570-8264 / Fax: 408-570-8942 / Mobile: 408-464-0733
> > E-mail: ed.cobb@bea.com
> > **************************************************************
>