Re: [business-transaction] Groups - BT-TC-FAQ.txt uploaded

[Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>]

Bill,

This document seems slightly out of date and does not seem to have been 
discussed previously.  When was it accepted by the group?  It surprises 
me to see this new version appear as our public FAQ [1].

I am wondering in particular about the last two questions and answers:

4. How does this work compare with related efforts at other standards 
organizations?

    There is currently no comparable work in other standards
    organisations.
    There are two known proprietary sets of specifications for
    transactional
    web services but these do not encompass protocols other than the web.

Really?  Why has this list recently been discussing the overlap with 
WS-C+AT and WS-CAF recently?

Is it the consensus of the group that covering more than web services 
(not just the web as in HTTP) is an important value add in BTP?

    BTP uses two-phase interaction of which all other transactional
    interactions
    are a degenerate form.  This two-phase capability can be collapsed
    into
    simpler interactions when interaction delays are more important than
    transactional visibility or control.

    The business transaction protocol provides transactions independently
    of
    the protocol used to carry application semantics.   BTP defines the
    abstract messages, message semantics, and a concrete binding.

    BTP addresses the issues of transactionality within and across entity
    boundries.  It defines only a small set of obligations for the
    service
    invoker and the service provider.   The service provider is free to
    choose
    appropriate cancellation or recovery semantics.

Most of the above three paragraphs seems related to earlier questions 
and not the relation between BTP and other efforts.

    The UN/CEFACT BPSS and related work contains an embedded business
    transaction protocol that is much more limited than BTP.

OASIS has announced a new TC to continue work on the BPSS specification. 
     The "UN/CEFACT" label may therefore not be appropriate anymore.

I would also say that BPSS describes business collaborations but defers 
to other infrastructure such as BTP or WS-CAF at run time rather than 
saying one is more limited than the other.

5. When will this specification be completed?

    The Business Transaction Protocol 1.0 was promoted to OASIS Technical
    Committee specification on 3rd June 2002.

The term is now Committee Draft according to the OASIS Process [2].  I 
am not entirely sure we should use the old term even when referring to 
documents created prior to publication of the latest process.  Has Karl 
said anything one way or the other?

thanx,
	doug

[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/business-transaction/faq.php
[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php

On 15-Oct-03 08:12, zpope@pobox.com wrote:

> The document BT-TC-FAQ.txt has been submitted by Bill Pope
> (zpope@pobox.com) to the OASIS Business Transactions TC document
> repository.
> 
> Document Description: FAQ for the Business Transaction tC
> 
> Download Document: 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/business-transaction/download.php/3865/BT-TC-FAQ.txt
> 
> 
> View Document Details: 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/business-transaction/document.php?document_id=3865
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email
> application may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be
> able to copy and paste the entire link address into the address field
> of your web browser.
> 
> -OASIS Open Administration
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
> of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/business-transaction/members/leave_workgroup.php.