[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
I don't have a strong opinion about renaming (because I haven't really had time to give it much thought), but it is worth pointing out that the names of the specifications within WS-CAF have undergone changes since the TC began. For instance, the transaction specification was originally WS-TransactionManagement (WS-TXM) and has now been replaced by 3 individual specifications, containing the different models that were once within the singular WS-TXM. So, for what it's worth, there is precedent. Mark. Greg Pavlik wrote: > 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 >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Mark Little Chief Architect Arjuna Technologies Ltd (www.arjuna.com)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]