OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

business-transaction message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


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



After talking with our representative on the ebXML group, I understand that
they are actually trying to introduce BTP concepts into the next rev. of
the specification to apply an "implementation" to the collaboration
contract in terms of BTP.  I guess one or more of the BTP members are also
members on the ebXML group so the statements in the document you sent are
actually more pessimistic than it first reads.  I would think it would be
fairly important to update this document as soon as we have reason to
believe that changes may be forthcoming as otherwise users of ebXML
contracts may feel that BTP is in doubt as far as ebXML is concerned.

I do appreciate the document and found it quite helpful especially in terms
of the explanation of the protocol stack.

Regards,

Bill Flood





                                                                                                                                 
                    "William Z                                                                                                   
                    Pope"                To:     <bill.flood@sybase.com>                                                         
                    <zpope@pobox.c       cc:     "OASIS BTP \(Main List\)" <business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org>           
                    om>                  Subject:     RE: [business-transaction] FW: Missing in Goals?                           
                                                                                                                                 
                    03/13/2002                                                                                                   
                    12:55 PM                                                                                                     
                    Please respond                                                                                               
                    to zpope                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                 




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>         To:        mark.potts@talkingblocks.com,     
                     "'Stephen White'" <swhite@SeeBeyond.com>,            
                     business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org            
   03/13/2002 11:47          cc:                                          
   AM                        Subject:        RE: [business-transaction]   
   Please respond to FW: Missing in Goals?                                
   zpope                                                                  
                                                                          





     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???












[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC