OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

business-transaction message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: RE: [business-transaction] Tentative Hold Protocol?

I've approached the authors to see if they are interested in participating
in BTP.  I have not read the THP specs yet but there seems to be an overlap
in objectives if nothing else.

I believe that it is essential that BTP does not go into agent
implementation detail.  This implementation agnosticism is IMO the major
advantage that web services style interfaces have over earlier attempts
such as COM or CORBA.


-----Original Message-----
From: Alastair Green [mailto:alastair.green@choreology.com]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 4:33 AM
To: Karl F. Best
Cc: business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [business-transaction] Tentative Hold Protocol?

Hi Karl,

Tentative Hold Protocol was submitted as a note to W3C on 28 November by
Intel. We've briefly examined and discussed it at Choreology -- the
following observations are preliminary and very likely incorporate some
level of misunderstanding or wrong assumptions.

THP could be viewed as a sub-set of BTP functionality. It defines a
combination of message formats and client and server side components and
their behaviour, allowing business rules to be applied to the granting or
refusing or cancellation or expiration of "holds" (expressions of interest
in inventory). It is purely focused on SOAP/HTTP and, from a business
perspective, angled towards procurement. BTP is more general, subsumes the
THP behaviour, and is suitable for a wider range of applications and carrier

A key difference between the two protocols is that BTP is a pure
interoperation protocol, and makes no statements about how the
implementation will be built or accessed, whereas THP combines an interop
protocol with (in my view, unnecessary) statements about how the messages
should be interpreted or dealt with by particular agents. THP also bundles
application messages with THP headers within a SOAP body, causing a hardwire
to a particular message format for the application. This makes it less
suitable for wrapping or mapping down to existing application protocols than

We in Choreology have recently been doing a lot of practical market
research, in the form of conversations with potential end-users of our
Cohesions product and explorations of numerous use cases in different
verticals. One thing that has emerged over and again is that flexibility in
terms of underlying carrier or application or trading protocol is a key
requirement for cross-departmental or inter-org integration/trading, and
investment protection.

I find THP a very interesting and thought-provoking stab at part of the same
problem as BTP. Yes, there is overlap, no there is not duplication. The
Intel authors reference BTP and TIP as possible complements to THP.


"Karl F. Best" wrote:

> BTP'ers:
> I've recently heard about a Note that has been submitted to W3C called
> Tentative Hold Protocol, which appears to overlap or duplicate the work
> that the BTP TC is doing. Does anyone know anything about this Note, or
> the work that it describes, and how it relates to BTP? Could you fill me
> in?
> </karl>
> =================================================================
> Karl F. Best
> OASIS - Director, Technical Operations
> 978.667.5115 x206
> karl.best@oasis-open.org  http://www.oasis-open.org
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC