Re: [ebxml-bp] Considerations for v20

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

>>Tell: Dear All,
>>
>>In a comment from the sidebar I would like bring about the following suggestions for ebBP 2 considerations.
>>
>>* Focus on the "Business" side of the protocol and not so much on technical features such a XPath.
>>
>Kulvantunyou: I also think that leaving things too abstract will cause interop problem
>which will effect future cost - not good for SME. So I think that grounding
>is also good.
>
>>Tell: * Focus on finding support for "instrument of offer" rather than better XML support.
>>
>>* Recognise that the target users are SME companies so adding technical complexities that makes the protocol difficult to "understand" for business users and expensive to implement should be avoided.
>>
>>* Avoid adding or hardcode dependencies to new specifications unless there are real business values identified.
>>
mm1: Anders, Serm (and Dave), these are all good comments. I believe we 
can strike a balance between the business semantics and XML support 
required.  The focus for quite some time (such as for 1.1) was to enable 
the business process specification to work more easily and provide the 
functionality required for business use.  That implies some tradeoffs on 
any side of any coin (such as NOF deletion and addition of AcceptAck for 
throughput on the protocol).  I hope everyone on the team can bring 
their respective views to the table and we can maintain that balance.  
As has been said many times, one of our key areas of concentration will 
be encouraging the loosely coupled, but highly aligned view on which 
ebXML was based, as well as looking for guidance in higher level 
constructs such as those evidenced in UMM, other TMG work like BET, and 
UBAC.