[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
There is no specification named WS-CAF. That is the umbrella TLA for the TC's trichotomous effort. The point of comparison is interesting: CAF was developed in a recognized standards body and had no preceding life in alternative public forums. The specs are very, very different from the original submissions. Greg > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jorgen Thelin [mailto:jthelin@microsoft.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:57 AM > >> To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > >> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014 > >> > >> Could you itemize the "significant differences" you envisage? > >> > >> Did the input documents to the WS-CAF TC undergo any similar > >> "significant differences" compared to the current versions > >> published by that TC? > >> > >> I am just trying to understand Oracle's thoughts and > >> principles on this topic. > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:48 AM > >> To: Jorgen Thelin; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > >> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014 > >> > >> My conjecture is that the specification produced by the WS-RX > >> WG will have significant differences from the earlier WS-RM > >> specifiaction. > >> A new name will prevent confusion. > >> > >> All the best, Ashok > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Jorgen Thelin [mailto:jthelin@microsoft.com] > >> > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:26 AM > >> > To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > >> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014 > >> > > >> > At least 7 companies are already shipping products implementing the > >> > submitted WS-ReliableMessaging specs, so the current name for this > >> > spec is already well established in customers minds and the market > >> > place at large. > >> > > >> > According to MSN Search, there are already 10x more > >> occurrences of the > >> > term WS-RM than for WS-RX. Google produces similar results (modulo > >> > confusion with various similarly named radio stations around the > >> > world). > >> > These figures illustrate how established the current name > >> already is > >> > in the industry, and how much of an uphill push it would be > >> to switch > >> > to a new name. > >> > > >> > Regarding "possible confusion with [the name of] other documents in > >> > the same space", the name "Reliable Messaging" > >> > is already just as different from "Reliability" as > >> "Reliable Exchange" > >> > is. This is like saying "oranges are better than apples > >> when compared > >> > to bananas"! Why make a gratuitous change to something that clearly > >> > isn't broken? > >> > > >> > As a comparison, are there any of the specs being produced by the > >> > WS-CAF TC that will be named "WS-CAF". Will Oracle be > >> making a similar > >> > proposal there too? > >> > > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] > >> > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 8:51 AM > >> > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > >> > Subject: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014 > >> > > >> > The Oracle folks would like to express our preference on issue i014. > >> > > >> > We would like the documents to be named WS-RX (Web Services > >> Reliable > >> > Exchange). > >> > This aligns the names of the documents with the name of the WG. It > >> > also removes possible confusion with other documents in the same > >> > space. > >> > > >> > All the best, Ashok > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]