[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: ebXML call
Owing to personal commitments (dealing with a 7 year old throwing up all day!) I won't be able to make the ebXML teleconference. (And believe me I'd love to attend compared to what I'm going to have to deal with ;-) However, I've talked briefly to Alastair and Peter and I think we are in broad agreement on some of the issues to do with "interworking". I also agree with the email Alastair sent round earlier. It may be sacrilege to say this, but I think that ebXML stands a good chance of being one of the many X-based protocols that doesn't have as much take-up as its proponents think. Unlike BTP, which has a (relatively) rich history of useage outside web services (I can point to many instances of roughly equivalent extended transaction functionality that have been in used for decades) and therefore has a proven background and requirement, I'm not 100% convinced that ebXML can say the same: true B2B is still a virgin territory. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if ebXML went through several revisions over the coming months/years, not to fix "bugs" but simply to add required functionality or remove functionality. Tying BTP to ebXML, therefore, would reduce its take up IMO. As we have said from the outset, there are good reasons why we do not want to mandate a specific mapping of BTP, and saying "you must use ebXML" is obviously going against this. Saying "you may", and looking at how this could happen is a useful piece of work (as long as doing so does not delay the adoption date of BTP). All the best, Mark. ---------------------------------------------- Dr. Mark Little (mark@arjuna.com) Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs Phone +44 191 2064538 Fax +44 191 2064203
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC