Re: [regrep] V3.0 of ebXML for SOA

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

Or mandatory and optional components.  If compliant with ebXML then 
features (a,b,c,d) must be present, Does not preclude additions of 
features (e,f,g,h).

A definition of a minimal set of components and configuration may be a 
good idea however this conversation should be deferred to and when we 
set up a TA list and TC.  I like the directions and initial input we 
have so far.

;-)

D

Matthew MacKenzie wrote:

> It was an example. Would it make sense to have an "ebXML architecture" 
> which could be interpreted to allow using UDDI, SOAP and BPEL instead 
> of ebReg+ebMS+ebBP? I think not.
>
> Implementability in a concrete sense means we need to make choices, 
> and those choices should be ebXML components wherever possible.
>
> -Matt
> On Dec 22, 2003, at 12:56 PM, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>
>
>
>     Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
>
>         If there is an ebXML Architecture, it should not be agnostic
>         to implementation.
>
>
>     I think I understand above to mean that ebXML Architecture should
>     be implementable and not some pie-in-sky that has no basis in
>     reality. If so I agree.
>
>         In other words, ebxml-bp should be specified over BPEL.
>
>
>     Now you have lost me. What does line above have to do with the
>     first statement?
>
>     -- 
>     Farrukh
>
>
> ___________________________
> Matthew MacKenzie
> Senior Architect
> Intelligent Documents Business Unit
> Adobe Systems Canada Inc.
> http://www.adobe.com/
> 506 869.0175
>

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