Re: [ebsoa] Scope of TC

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

Answers also inline...

Dale Moberg wrote:

>2 positive comments in line.
>The last sentence
>is a little too cryptic for me. Will BCM define the feature sets and
>requirements for ebSOA?
>
[DN] No - BCM was an illustrative example of a methodology for mapping 
requirements to technology.  Sort of like UMM but easier (or so it is 
claimed).  

>Your main point about getting involved in relying on specifications
>sounds OK, but the example is possibly misleading.
>
>I think that WS arena has several candidate technologies for bilateral
>service agreements. WSPL, XACML and eventually WS-Policy may partly
>implement that functionality. The W3C announced an October discussion
>meeting on these topics, so there may be an(other) open specification on
>these matters. [I know there is interest in the ebXML CPPA as to how one
>could xslt transform between the approaches if it becomes just a matter
>of tag names and syntax.] 
>
[DN] I do not think the models align therefore mapping may be difficult 
without additional source input.

>WS-CDL may also partly implement process
>agreements. Maybe WSDL, being an interface/binding  definition language,
>can be viewed as specifying a contract for which a human could set a
>token (endpoint value, e.g.). ebXML has CPPA and BPSS to specify aspects
>of the contract. Initially I think the totality of WS specifications
>seemed to be missing a few parts present in the collection of ebXML
>specifications, but gradually the collections are moving toward a
>functional parity. ebXML's current convergence tactic (3.0) is to adopt
>functionally equivalent WS specifications to reduce the implementation
>burdens on developers and users alike. I find it particularly ironic as
>the two sets of specifications grow functionally comparable, that
>architectural people are urging the ebXML stuff to be thrown out. On
>what basis?  I would hate to see ebSOA degenerate into the kind of
>technical marketing buyer's guide that the w3c architecture document did
>(captured perfectly in their mantra that a web service is something that
>uses SOAP and WSDL and UDDI, or at least 2 out of 3). 
>  
>
[DN] Agree.  Interesting questions indeed.

Cheers

D

-- 
Senior Standards Strategist
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://www.adobe.com