Sorry - I didn't mean to ignore to your comments about "web services", I just had in my head that they were included in the broad definition of messaging services. I guess I don't see the need for mentioning web services specifically as clearly as you do. But I trust your instinct, and I can support your wording below.
Susanne, Kenneth, Mikkel et al,
How about: “…data exchange, messaging and web services interoperability between domains”?
To your question, Susanne, I’d use the Internet as an analogy for how the notions of extension and limitation relate to one another in this interoperability context. Indeed, as you say, on one level, we don’t care what we are interconnecting, just as the Internet was about making networks of all kinds interoperable, regardless of their many different internal protocols. However, the means by which that was realized for networking was one tightly-defined, *lightweight* stack of standards (TCP/IP, DNS, SMTP) with *just enough* functionality that “gateways” or “routers” implementing that stack were able to deliver that universal interoperability.
I think a similarly universal stack of lightweight, tightly-defined, just-functional-enough standards will emerge in this space – perhaps, I hope, from this BDX effort. The key, I think, is in determining what is “just enough” to achieve fairly universal interoperability. Since much of the work in recent years on interoperability has been under the ‘web services’ banner, it seems to me important to include that in the TC’s interoperability goal *regardless of what an eventual, tightly-defined standards stack looks like*.
Mikkel, to your point, AMQP feels to me like it fits within the scope of ‘web services’, broadly defined (and, indeed, messaging). SFTP I personally would not consider as ‘web services’ but would include under ‘messaging’. I agree that the ability to describe an SFTP endpoint could be within scope.
You explicitly say that adding the term 'web services' is to extend rather than limit the concept of data exchange. However this is (at least from a layman's perspective) precisely not the impression it is conveying. In my ears "web services interoperability" is about connecting web services (or even Web Services), whereas the very point of what we are doing is we don't care about *what* we are interconnecting (or so I thought). Just my two cents.
Von: Roger Bass [mailto:email@example.com]
Gesendet: Montag, 5. März 2012 19:05
An: 'Mikkel Hippe Brun'; 'Kenneth Bengtsson'
Cc: Wigard, Susanne (IT.NRW); 'Tim McGrath'; firstname.lastname@example.org; 'Jens Jakob Andersen'
Betreff: RE: [bdx] Proposal for a TC recharter
I won’t belabor the point much further, but it seems to me the already agreed scope here is more than just “messaging service interoperability”. SML/P (and indeed CPPA) are about interoperability at the level of business capabilities to exchange very specific types of data (invoice, order… and doubtless other types in the eCODEX domain). Kenneth, you didn’t comment specifically on leaving out “web services”.
I think Mikkel’s points emphasizing the “lightweight” requirement are well made, and I’m certainly not arguing for any particular heavyweight standard from the Web Services domain. I see it as a broader issue. Rightly or wrongly, leaving out ‘web services’ contributes, I think, to a continuing impression that the TC is reluctant to even consider leveraging or aligning with the fairly substantial related efforts to date elsewhere, in particular around web services (lower case!) and SOA more broadly, and even if that’s a longer term goal.
If I’m the only person thinking like this on ‘web services’ then I’ll drop the point, but I’d be interested in hearing specific arguments for excluding it.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Mikkel Hippe Brun
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 8:42 AM
To: Kenneth Bengtsson
Cc: Roger Bass; Susanne.Wigard@it.nrw.de; Tim McGrath; email@example.com; Jens Jakob Andersen
Subject: Re: [bdx] Proposal for a TC recharter
I am very happy with the proposed change.
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Kenneth Bengtsson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Good idea with the Wiki. I will follow up on that.
I'm also in agreement with Mikkel's comments and in general I support the proposed changes. However I also think that "interoperability" is an important aspect of the work of the TC and shouldn't be removed entirely. One could say that to "exchange data between domains" interoperability is implicit, but I still think we could benefit from emphasizing it. I would be fine with:
The purpose of the TC is therefore to define the specifications of a lightweight and federated messaging and trust infrastructure for reliable data exchange and messaging services interoperability between domains.
Kenneth, Susanne, Mikkel et al,
My apologies too, belatedly, for missing the last meeting – I look forward to the next one. Given the ongoing discussions and emails about potential edits, I wonder if it would be helpful to leverage the OASIS wiki infrastructure for this charter discussion? Keeping track via of proposed changes all the emails is challenging. I did just verify that no OASIS wiki has yet been set up for BDX. Kenneth, as the new chair, would you be able to request this from the TC-Admin? Ideally perhaps, the wiki might show the draft charter as you originally submitted it, Kenneth, with each subsequent change noted separately.
As to the specifics of Mikkel’s proposals: adding “lightweight” and “reliable” seem good to me.
I’m less comfortable with removing “web services interoperability”. I agree we shouldn’t limit ourselves to “Web Services” in the formal, capitalized sense. However, as originally written here, I think the sense of adding that term is to *extend* rather than *limit* the concept of data exchange. Using lower case, I think, also implies we’re not limiting this to the WS-* stack (RESTful web services etc included, for example). And while I’m aware that OASIS has taken on the WS-I work, my understanding is that that was more narrowly scoped, and is now in maintenance mode. ‘Web services’ is also an important, descriptive term used for much related work in this domain, and I think it’s helpful to point that out here.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Mikkel Hippe Brun
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 1:04 AM
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: [bdx] Proposal for a TC recharter
Thank you for this clarification Susanne. I am very exited about the prospect of getting new resources into the TC. I have re-read the proposed charter multiple times and I can see where you are coming from and that you really intend to make the TC very operational.
The only thing I miss from the old charter is the emphasis on the resulting infrastructure in itself being lightweight. It also follows from the infrastructure being federated, but the critical part is that any centralized infrastructure components have as little footprint as possible. The more we can piggybag on existing infrastructure the better. Such a framing would also scope discussions about service discovery and addressing specifications like UDDI and ebXML RegRep.
I would then sugges the following change to the proposed charter:
The purpose of the TC is therefore to define the specifications of a federated messaging and trust infrastructure for data exchange and web services interoperability between domains.
The purpose of the TC is therefore to define the specifications of a lightweight and federated messaging and trust infrastructure for reliable data exchange between domains.
I have taken out the "web services interoperability" because this is covered by other OASIS TC's and I dont think that we should limit ourselvs to web services (in the classical sence). The old charter mentioned "messaging service standards" and I think this term covers the intention better.
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM, <Susanne.Wigard@it.nrw.de> wrote:
First let me apologize for failing to join the telco. I'll have more comments when I get to see the minutes - for now let me just emphasize that indeed the intention of broadening the scope goes anlong with the goal to add resources to the TC, in particular from the LSP project that I'm working with, e-CODEX, and connected to activities in the context of creating a common transport infrastructure for the ongoing and future LSPs. So it's not about disreagrding the PEPPOL work, but quite to the contrary about continuning it into new projects and domains.
Mobile +49 1735260181
Von: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Im Auftrag von Mikkel Hippe Brun
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 1. März 2012 22:28
An: Kenneth Bengtsson
Cc: Tim McGrath; email@example.com; Jens Jakob Andersen
Betreff: Re: [bdx] Proposal for a TC recharter
Thank you for the clarification Kenneth. This sounds very good and I look forward to the continued discussion and the next meeting.
Regards / Hilsen
I agree with your comments, and it was as such also the intention with the proposed charter to reflect these viewpoints. I'm sure the wording can be improved:
In the statement of purpose it says that TC specifications should be...
"...wherever and to the extent possible, based on profiles of existing standards from OASIS and elsewhere that are widely-used and proven, or otherwise seen to be generally applicable.".
The intended meaning of this is, exactly as both of you commented: To focus on technologies that already exist and can be put into immediate use in the work of the TC.
Also in the statement of purpose:
"In certain areas the work will therefore initially be centered on the work of these LSPs (notably on SMLP around identity and service discovery, addressing and profiling), and will also consider other approaches and related specifications (e.g. DNS, ebXML CPA, UDDI, ebXML RegRep, WS-Discovery)...".
The intended meaning here is to say: We will leverage the work already done by PEPPOL and other LSPs - this is our starting point. However, if along the way we accept specific requirements or if we see that our work can benefit from it, then we shouldn't by default disregard other technologies. We have a solid starting point with the work already produced by the LSPs and it is from there that we progress. However we shouldn't progress wearing blinkers.
In the scope of work is specifically mentioned that the specifications from PEPPOL (namely SML, SMP, START and LIME) will have their home in the TC. The SML/SMP technology are the foundation for discovery, whereas START and LIME may have more PEPPOL-specific uses. I'd like to stress again that it is not the intention to disregard the work already produced.
I'm sure that the wordings in the proposed charter can be improved to better reflect the intended meaning. There is no pride in ownership, so please feel free to make all the suggestions for improvement that you like! At yesterday's meeting we agreed to postpone the vote for the recharter until March 14 to allow for comments and specific proposals.
With regards to the "speed with which the TC can work": Mike made the comment yesterday that broadening the scope of the TC means that more work has to be produced, and that adding more resources is by no means a guarantee that work will progress any faster. This is a valid comment and it is in most cases true. However, in our specific case it is a specific objective with the recharter to make the TC a platform for producing specifications for an ongoing convergence of the LSPs respective eDelivery technologies. A widening of the scope will therefore enable the LSPs to add resources to the TC and to take a leading role. As the LSPs are also working with milestones and deadlines I do in fact believe that the proposed recharter will make the TC gain momentum rather than loosing it.
Joao volunteered yesterday to make a suggestion to the proposed charter for clarifying/underlining the role and significance of the LSPs (and the LSP convergence process) in the TC.
I also have a call conflict for today's call. i support Mikkel's view on this - the rechartering is a good step forward, but there is a risk of loosing momentum. We should be capitalizing on the progress PEPPOL and other LSPs have made in this area. That is, we should be building on what we have, not what we would like to see.
On 29/02/12 10:28 PM, Mikkel Hippe Brun wrote:
I will unfortunately be in transit during todays call due to a delayed flight.
I do support the change to the TC's charter if it means wider support to the TC's work from the other large scale pilots. I do however have concerns about the widening of the scope as it will impact the speed with which the TC can work (Mike's argument).
One important criteria that is fundamental for the large scale pilots mentioned in the charter is that there is very little willingness to establish and fund more than the most essential shared infrastructure components. It is therefore in my opinion very important that the technologies that the TC explores for service discovery and addressing piggybacks on existing Internet infrastructure like DNS.
I don’t find UDDI or ebXML RegRep to be operational and scalable for large scale infrastructures. We may as a TC and individuals find the standards behind UDDI or ebXML RegRep to be appropriate, but the reference implementations are not battle proven for large scale use. And it is my very strong opinion that the TC should focus on technologies that are battle proven and can be put into use immediately.
Finally - I would like to step down as chair for the TC, but I would like to continue as TC member.
On Tuesday, February 21, 2012, Kenneth Bengtsson wrote:
Hi Jens Jakob
I very much agree with you that this is an important design goal and
objective for a number of applications (PEPPOL for example). At the same
time I also believe we must acknowledge that other applications can have
different requirements and implementation architectures.
One of the important reasons for the proposed recharter is to allow for a
broader and more general application of the BDX specifications. This
doesn't mean that we in PEPPOL will accept to have specific protocol
requirements imposed on the "final leg" between gateway and enduser, I
strongly agree with you on this. What it means is that we see an advantage
in opening up the possible use cases for BDX, and not let the requirements
of one project stand in the way of a more broad adoption.
On 2/20/12 8:15 AM, "Jens Jakob Andersen" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Thank you for the clarifications.
>I still cant see in the specs, that is is a _must_, that the protocols to
>be used between gateways must be agnostic to whatever is used on the
>first & last legs.
>Some of the "GW to GW" protocols I have seen demonstrated, has many
>features that can only be usefull, when the same family of protocol is
>The original design-goal of BDX was to deliver a "meta-protocol" to be
>used between gateways - to interconnect different domains. And supporting
>many different transport-protocols below.
>From my (fast fading viewpoint as I am leaving the TC), these
>design-goals should be kept as the TC's design-goals.
>Fra: Kenneth Bengtsson [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sendt: 13. februar 2012 15:58
>Til: Jens Jakob Andersen; Tim McGrath
>Emne: Re: SV: [bdx] SV: Proposal for a TC recharter
>Hi Jens Jakob
>As Tim already mentioned, the 4-corner model is described already in the
>With regards to "connecting islands":
>In the first paragraph is stated that BDX describes a model "where two
>entities exchange business documents in a secure and reliable way through
>the use of gateways". If we can agree that it is in the definition of a
>gateway that it has two sides, then it is in logic that the two entities
>exchanging business documents must each connect to their respective
>gateways, and that the gateways must connect to one another. Then you
>have the first, the last, and the middle "leg" of the transaction. If you
>read the second and third paragraph of the statement of purpose and
>replace "domain" with "island", then I think you will agree that it is
>actually in the proposed purpose statement to "connect different islands
>It is my understanding that the term "island" is mainly used in
>procurement jargon, why we have used the more generic term "domain" to
>describe exactly the same. This is also to signal that the potential use
>of BDX goes beyond procurement and e-commerce business documents - BDX
>can be used for any type of electronic business document.
>On 2/13/12 9:44 AM, "Jens Jakob Andersen" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>Thank you for the clarification.
>>That is half of it.
>>What I am looking for is the other part of the 4-corner model, that
>>different protocols can be used on the "first leg" and "last leg" and
>>the "inbetween" part can be a standardized "meta-protocol" such as
>>START - open for mapping to "any" actual protocol.
>>This is the core of the idea of START /and BusDox and BDX/ - that the
>>challenge is to "connect different islands of networks".
>>The acid-test for any change should (IMHO) be: "Can it deliver the
>>value mentioned, in a setup with different protols/implementations on
>>the first and last leg".
>>Fra: Tim McGrath [mailto:email@example.com]
>>Sendt: 13. februar 2012 11:22
>>Til: Jens Jakob Andersen
>>Cc: Kenneth Bengtsson; firstname.lastname@example.org
>>Emne: Re: [bdx] SV: Proposal for a TC recharter
>>it is in the statement of purpose.
>>> The BDX standard will describe an architecture (or sets of reference
>>>architectures) where two entities exchange bu
Mikkel Hippe Brun
Chief Strategy Officer, Cofounder
Voice: +45 3118 9102
Twitter: @hippebrun @tradeshift
-- INVOICING HAS NEVER BEEN EASIER --