Re: ebXML issues

[Sazi Temel <sazi.temel@bea.com>]

Alastair,
This is a very well formulated proposal. Some minor comments below.

--Sazi

At 03:20 PM 7/16/01 +0100, Alastair Green wrote:
> Hi, 
>
> Preparatory to the phone call with the ebXML group, here are some
> proposals for our committee to consider at its next telephone conference
> call. Point 3) could be taken as a proposal to the ebXML group on how to
> move forward. 
>
> Our view is that a) the work done in BTP is valuable, near complete, and
> of much wider application than ebXML BPSS trade transactions; b) that BTP
> may well be valuable in assisting ebXML goals, and that ebXML
> requirements in this area may help with future iterations of BTP,

Totally agreed! I think BTP is a generic business transaction
coordination protocol that may be plug-in to other protocols such as
ebXML and other b2b and web services protocols.

> c) that we do not wish to see BTP
> impeded by references to incomplete work or work which is heavily in
> progress, d) that ebXML has different speed of development and adoption
> profiles than BTP, and 

I agree that these discussions should not destruct BTP work in
progress... on the time frame we have set for completion.

> e) that ebXML is not the only
> developing standard in a closely related area, so we should not
> inadvertently cold-shoulder other initiatives like BPMI. 

Agreed. Beside, BPML group already suggested to use BTP in their
transactions handling.. We do not have to do anything to this happen, it
does not require any changes what so ever in the protocol..

> Therefore: 
>
> 1) The TC plans to work towards adoption in principle of the draft
> spec at the July face-to-face next week, with the aim of a final vote by
> e-mail after editorial revisions, in the first week of early September.
> At that stage there will be an OASIS Committee Specification for Business
> Transactions 1.0. The July face-to-face is a technical working meeting to
> achieve that goal, and should not entertain discussion on the future role
> and positioning of BTP. 
>
> 2) To continue the work of the BTP TC after the July meeting, as a
> forum for decisions on corrections, revisions and maintenance of BTP 1.0,
> aiming to take e-mail votes on issues arising from implementation
> attempts. The TC will also be able to deal with any proposals as to the
> future role and positioning of BTP when they arise. 
>
> 3) To establish a joint working party with the relevant ebXML group
> and any other potentially related specifications (such as BPML) to
> examine the future role and positioning of BTP, to be convened in
> September or thereafter, and to preceded by a written exchange on
> technology comparisons and terms of reference. 

Agreed on all three points. 

I see tomorrows conf call as a chance to be able to get first hand
information on ebXML  to see possibilities to leverage BTP in ebXML
in the future... I also agree with Mark Pott's comments earlier on the
technical side of the discussions as underlined in the BTP workflow
doc.

> Yours, 
>
> Alastair 
>

---

Sazi Temel
Principal Consultant,
eCommerce Services, bea Systems, inc. [www.bea.com]

---