RE: (Per Mark Hale),RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business Transactiongroup

[Mark Potts <mark.potts@talkingblocks.com>]

All:

I have been working with Saxi Temel at BEA on the workflow sub-committee on
a paper / appendix to our specification specifically in regard to other
process management initiatives that discuss and cover the very overloaded
term "business transaction".

To date I have completed looking at BPML, WSFL, XLANG, while Sazi is looking
at ebXML. ebXML is by far the most complete expansive specification and as
such is taking the longest time.. I am no ebXML guru and in Sazi's absence
am reading the following documents to give at least an overview in terms of
a "contrast and compare" with an open view on opportunities and overlap.

1) ebXML Business Process Specification Schema (BPSS version 1.01)
2) UN/CEFACT Modelling Methodology ( TMWG N090R9.1 )

My first impression were very similar to those of Peter Furniss, but this
was simple reading the introduction to BPSS, perhaps an ignorant approach,
and not delving any deeper  - certainly not reading the TMWG document.

I think the conference call suggested by Mark Hale is the best way to go
about coming to a consensus on the roles and position of these specification
and how we can leverage each others work. At that time I will have published
at least the "very high" view of BTP in regard to these other specification
efforts.


Regards,
-------------------------------------------------
Mark Potts
Chief Technology Officer
Talking Blocks
www.talkingblocks.com

t. 415 255 7424
f. 415 255 7425
c. 415 606 9096
e. mailto:mark.potts@talkingblocks.com
-------------------------------------------------



-----Original Message-----
From: Alastair Green [mailto:alastair.green@choreology.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 11:23 PM
To: Krishna Sankar
Cc: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org; BTP
Subject: Re: (Per Mark Hale),RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business
Transactiongroup


Bob Haugen wrote:

> > I'd be interested in a dispassionate conversation about how
> > those who know both BTP and the ebXML-BP + UMM transaction
> > protocol think the two compare and contrast.  (The comparers
> > would need to understand the UMM transaction patterns as
> > well as BPSS, and don't get hung up on choreography details.)

and I would add that the comparers would need to understand the BTP
protocol, which is
why I made the comment that some *reciprocal* research would be a good idea
before
declaring war.

There will be a draft of the BTP spec by the time of the call proposed. In
the meantime
let me highlight a couple of BTP features that do not seem to figure in the
ebXML work
and its references, on a very hasty first reading:

multiple arbitrary content participants (reversible operation groups)
multi-party coordination
ability to coordinate data- and operation-oriented participants, including
XA resources

indefinite number of application exchanges within context of a transaction
transaction propagation across a tree of services
termination protocol

BTP would naturally lodge underneath a business process definition. It
dumbly provides
the facilities for applications (including workflows) to automate some of
the exchanges
required to synchronize and "atomize" related actions in multiple services.

I very much support Mark Hale's diplomatic work to create a dialogue. I
believe that
the outcome of this discussion will be that ebXML may wish to use,
reference, compare
or contrast BTP, but that BTP has a much wider remit and independent
application than
ebXML's use of "transactions". The workflow sub-committee of BTP has been
working for a
few weeks on an appendix for our specification on relationship of BTP to
business
process management initiatives, so I hope that the proposed conference call
will help
in that section's finalization.

Yours humbly, from the benighted depths of ignorance,

Alastair

PS I knew we'd get into trouble using the term "business transactions". Too
many
meanings for too many groups.

Krishna Sankar wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>         We need some passion otherwise the conversation could get pretty
morose :-)
>
>         On a serious note, I support David's suggestions. My humble
suggestion is
> also that the conversation should revolve around how can one leverage the
> other. Crisp definitions and feature set would help here.
>
>         If the BTP folks are working on a slice, let them finish the work
and then
> ebXML can leverage the work. It is not a compare and contrast but how both
> can fill-in the pieces of a puzzle and who has which pieces (sorry for the
> pieces analogy, was just doing Lego with my son :-))
>
>         cheers
>
>   |-----Original Message-----
>   |From: Welsh, David [mailto:David.Welsh@nordstrom.com]
>   |Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 5:42 PM
>   |To: 'Bob Haugen'; 'James Bryce Clark'; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
>   |Cc: mark.hale@interwoven.com; karl.best@oasis-open.org; 'Peter
Furniss';
>   |'Eric Newcomer'
>   |Subject: RE: (Per Mark Hale), RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business
>   |Transactiongroup
>   |
>   |
>   |I hear the term 'business transaction' used by both groups and
>   |at the same time statements claiming no duplicate effort, yet
>   |without specific details ! So in the interest of clarity, I'd
>   |also welcome hearing objective coversation where both sides show
>   |how the 2 compare and contrast as 'BUSINESS
>   |transactions'.
>   |Thanks
>   |-Dave
>   |
>   |
>   |> -----Original Message-----
>   |> From: Bob Haugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
>   |> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 5:25 PM
>   |> To: 'James Bryce Clark'; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
>   |> Cc: mark.hale@interwoven.com; karl.best@oasis-open.org;
>   |> 'Peter Furniss';
>   |> 'Eric Newcomer'
>   |> Subject: RE: (Per Mark Hale), RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business
>   |> Transactiongroup
>   |>
>   |>
>   |> I'd be interested in a dispassionate conversation about how
>   |> those who know both BTP and the ebXML-BP + UMM transaction
>   |> protocol think the two compare and contrast.  (The comparers
>   |> would need to understand the UMM transaction patterns as
>   |> well as BPSS, and don't get hung up on choreography details.)
>   |>
>   |> In other words, set aside anything accusatory, e.g. words
>   |> like "conflict" and precedence and MOUs and see how the two
>   |> initiatives might relate.  Then we can get all mad at each
>   |> other later.8-)
>   |>
>   |> My first impressions were that BTP covers a lot of the same ground,
>   |> even to the same idea of transactional behavior from the viewpoint
>   |> of the initiator.  As UN/CEFACT ebWG gets into collaboration
>   |> patterns,
>   |> the area of overlap will be larger.
>   |>
>   |> We've just had Jean-Jacques Dubray do a detailed comparison and
>   |> binding between ebXML BPSS and BPML.  Something similar needs
>   |> to be done with the other collaboration choreography initiatives.
>   |>
>   |> -Bob Haugen
>   |>
>   |> (What was that quote about standards being wonderful because
>   |> there were so many of them?)
>   |>
>   |> -----Original Message-----
>   |> From:      James Bryce Clark [SMTP:jamie.clark@mmiec.com]
>   |> Sent:      Thursday, July 05, 2001 5:53 PM
>   |> To:        ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
>   |> Cc:        mark.hale@interwoven.com; karl.best@oasis-open.org
>   |> Subject:   (Per Mark Hale), RE: ebXML in W3C?  and OASIS
>   |> Business Transactiongroup
>   |>
>   |> Forwarding this to the BP list from Mark Hale's post to the BTP list.
>   |>
>   |> At 03:32 PM 7/5/01, Mark A. Hale wrote:
>   |> >Karl,
>   |> >
>   |> >I would just like to further support your stance that this
>   |> is not duplicate
>   |> >effort with ebXML.
>   |> >
>   |> >As an organization that endorsed the BTP submission and also
>   |> being the ebXML
>   |> >POC co-chair at the same time, I reviewed the submission as
>   |> being entirely
>   |> >complementary to ebXML.  I fielded calls from other ebXML
>   |> organizations in
>   |> >the interim between submission and the start date in March.
>   |> Most of the
>   |> >discussion emphasized that this technology does integrate into
ebXML.
>   |> >However, ebXML was on a schedule for May and it was not feasible to
>   |> >introduce the topic and maintain the final date.  ebXML has
>   |> been considered
>   |> >from the start.  Conversely, BTP is nearing the end of its
>   |> short life-cycle
>   |> >and I would offer that we evaluate its direction at the
>   |> final f2f to be held
>   |> >later this month.
>   |> >
>   |> >I do not have post privileges on the ebxml-bp mailing list.
>   |> >
>   |> >         Thanks,
>   |> >
>   |> >         Mark
>   |>
>   |>
>   |> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>   |> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
>   |> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
>   |>
>   |>
>   |> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>   |> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
>   |> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
>   |>
>   |
>   |------------------------------------------------------------------
>   |To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
>   |"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
>   |
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Potts;Mark
FN:Mark Potts (E-mail)
ORG:Talking Blocks
TITLE:Chief Technology Officer
TEL;WORK;VOICE:(415) 255-7424
TEL;CELL;VOICE:(415) 606-9096
TEL;WORK;FAX:(415) 255-7425
ADR;WORK:;San Francisco;10 United Nations Plaza, Suite 610;San Francisco;CA;94102;United States of America
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:San Francisco=0D=0A10 United Nations Plaza, Suite 610=0D=0ASan Francisco, CA=
 94102=0D=0AUnited States of America
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:mark.potts@talkingblocks.com
REV:20010412T180824Z
END:VCARD