RE: [business-transaction] FW: Missing in Goals?

[William Z Pope <zpope@pobox.com>]

 

Hi Bill,

You may get several replies to this question.  I don't think that HTTPR and BTP are in conflict.

HTTPR addresses the reliable delivery of messages between one party and another.  BTP

addresses the consistent understanding of the state of a business agreement.  BTP is

coordinating activity at a higher level.  BTP can make use of HTTPR to ensure the delivery of

either or both of the application messages and the corresponding BTP commitment

management messages.

 

BTP and BPML are aligned and complementary.  Members of the TC (Mark Potts and Sazi Temel)

have produced a paper describing this alignment further

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/business-transactions/documents/2001-07-12.BTPModelForWF2.doc

 

Work flow and process management systems like WSFL (also addressed in the document linked

above) are part of the design center of BTP.  The expectation is that BTP coordinators will do the

bidding of process managers defined in some external way, be it WSFL or Java.  This is part of

the value of cohesions in the spec.

 

Hope this helps,

=bill

-----Original Message-----
From: bill.flood@sybase.com [mailto:bill.flood@sybase.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2:52 PM
To: zpope@pobox.com
Cc: business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [business-transaction] FW: Missing in Goals?

Bill,

Do you see any alignment/harmonization between IBM's HTTPR and BTP or will they be completely competitive?  Do you feel BTP aligns better with the likes of BPML or other like standards?

You comments are greatly appreciated...

Bill Flood
Sybase

William Z Pope <zpope@pobox.com> 03/13/2002 11:47 AM Please respond to zpope

To:        mark.potts@talkingblocks.com, "'Stephen White'" <swhite@SeeBeyond.com>, business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org         cc:                 Subject:        RE: [business-transaction] FW: Missing in Goals?

 
You seem to be making the assumption that chevrontexaco or the W3 ws-arch group
is aligned with the IBM statements.  Is that known to be so?
 
Regardless this looks to be an opportunity to inform the W3C ws-arch group about BTP.
I would have copyed Roger Cutler on this but would prefer to leave that to Steve since
he was party to the original email.
 
=bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Potts [mailto:mark.potts@talkingblocks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2:11 PM
To: 'Stephen White'; business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [business-transaction] FW: Missing in Goals?

This is indicative of where IBM are coming from on this subject ( the coupling of reliable messaging and transactions). Ive attached a exert from IBM Web Services site and is consistent with what IBMers are telling me with respect to HTTP/R.
 
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-ref10/
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-phtt/
 

Regards,
Mark Potts - Chief Technology Officer
Talking Blocks

(    Office : +1 415 255 7424
(    Cell : +1 415 606 9096
8 Email : mark.potts@talkingblocks.com

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen White [mailto:swhite@SeeBeyond.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 10:29 AM
To: business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [business-transaction] FW: Missing in Goals?

This message posted to the W3C Web Services Architecture group - looks like he's asking, "where is BTP?"
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 8:09 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Missing in Goals?

I'm a little concerned that I am not seeing any traces of reliable messaging -- that is, guaranteed delivery, only-once delivery and so on -- in the discussion of goals.  This is very important for business applications of web services.  Is it contained in some goal without being made explicit?  Will it reappear at the requirments level?  Have I possibly just missed it in the blizzard of email?  Is there something that should be added to the goals with this in mind?

Surely the subject is in scope -- isn't it???