[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [business-transaction] Amended minutes for the BTP March 8 face to face
The following minutes have been amended based on comments and discussion during the March 13the BTP phone conference. =bill BTP Face to Face Meeting March 8, 2002 Hosted by Geoff Brown at Oracle Overall: Meeting was a success. A draft schedule was produced (included below) for release of the spec from committee. BEA and Oracle agreed to close some issues and defer others until after the release of the 1.0 spec. This, along with the issues to be closed by the model text will leave us with less than 10 issues open. Agenda: - What's needed to move to committee draft + Schedule and Dates + Primer schedule - BTP Marketing - Issues + Issues deferred to post 1.0. + Conformance Actions: ---------------------------------------- * Geoff Brown: Oracle to internally review the current SOAP 1.1 bindings (underway). * Bill Cox & Mark Potts: Draft of Primer by March 15. * Bill Pope & Geoff Brown: Draft of Executive Summary. Include clear statement of business case for BTP. * Bill Pope & Mike Leznar: draft press release for BTP committee draft. Schedule ---------------------------------------- Needed for completion - All issues resolved - Primer - Model Completed Starting March 11 - 2 weeks to work on raw material March 25 - 1 week to produce review draft * Publish to committee - 2 week comment period - 2 weeks of assimilation and editing * Re-Publish to committee - 1 week of reading time - F2F, vote to accept as committee draft F2F week of May 13th - May 17th Issues ---------------------------------------- - All new issues will be automatically created with state set to "deferred until after 1.0". This makes concrete the decision taken at the end of last year. SOAP Bindings and other Binding Issues - Need to clarify that the binding component is NOT (typically) implemented as part of the application. It is implemented as part of a toolkit/library/component. - Are the current toolkits able to implement the BTP bindings. - There is a need in the spec to distinguish more clearly between what is carried in application messages, what is in the BTP messages, and what is or may be shared. Need to distinguish what gets carried on the application transport and what on the BTP transport. It is expected to be common that the application communication occurs over one protocol and BTP communication occurs over another protocol. Discussion ======================================== Web Services - How much are we targeting BTP towards web services? These seems to have changed over time. The web services market seems to be becoming more important. - The initial charter for BTP allowed for web services but was not the sole requirement or reason for the spec. - The web services market has set end user expectation that web services are end-user producible. This requires a spec with much more background and description than a spec targeted infrastructure developers. - What is the target audience for this specification? Product vendors or end-user/direct users. - The current spec is targetted at the TC members, infrastructure vendors, and prospective vendors. Large organizations need to be able to at least understand (architect, business decider) what BTP is and does. This is another audience of the spec. Large organizations may want to implement some or all of the BTP actors themselves. Documents to be produced - Spec Target audience: implementors of BTP components Protocol specification. Peter and all TC - Primer Target audience: web services implementors, architects or others required for technical sale Technical introduction Bill Cox, Mark Potts, and those responding to the call - Executive summary Target audience: end customers of the technology, "the masses" Business placement, problem addressed, audience for the spec. Expected use. Sales tool - "better, cheaper, faster" Bill Pope and Geoff Brown Spec requirements - Need a clear statement of the impact on consumer application and the provider application. - Consumer application Initiator component CONTEXT management Use of application information - Can we make the spec more understandable by reducing the document E.g., move the state tables to a separate document, normative appendix. - Add "Next Steps" section to the specification. This defines areas of future work and evolution of the spec. May give caveats on areas that are likely to change. For Oracle: need clear statement of business cases for BTP. - BTP performs "Committment Management" - Takeup of BTP will likely require helping the understanding by large organizations/enterprises of BTP, whether or not they may choose to implement the specification. Large organizations will need to UNDERSTAND BTP before making a decision to adopt; the minutes reflect a non-consensus on whether large organizations will IMPLEMENT BTP. Some BTP actors/components are more likely to be implemented by non-vendors than others i.e., Initiator, Terminator, and Participant. There was NOT concensus during the meeting on the IMPLEMENTATION of BTP component by end-user organizations. There was concensus on the need for understanding of BTP in large, end-user organizations. What is BTP? Benefits and audiences - Need transactions that work over Internet infrastructure. Deployment in replicated environment makes transaction management difficult. In Oracle (design Principle) data is centralized. XML pipelining standard needs an underlying interoperation protocol, BTP could provide this. See http://www.w3.org/TF/xml-pipeline High performance applications using binary XML. * Question: Sanjay assumes that BTP provides value for long running transactions. Is this a core assumption for BTP? Does BTP support short lived transactions? Does it provide value for short lived transactions. Need interoperation to sustain and grow the transaction market. Value is in stitching together the new and legacy applications over the Internet. - Shareable BTP state Need to define the Use Cases that we want to support. Open definition of state movement adds a specific value above and beyond what exists in any current products. Marketing of the Specification 1) what is the business value of BTP 2) What is the audience for the spec 3) What is the appropriate level of the spec Feedback from OMG web services conference The was a lack of understanding of the business problem that BTP solves that OTS does not solve. We need to more clearly address what the business need is for BTP. - What is the target implementation market? - What is the target deployment market? * Need Statement of the Continuation of the Committee - 1.1 maintenance draft - OASIS standard production - New work * Common BTP Presentations - Shareable within OASIS or the TC - Created by the TC - Downloadable from BTP web site. * Press Releases Bill Pope and M Lenzar - Get quotes on BTP, high level execs from supporting companies. This is needed for the publication of the committee draft release. * Publicize activities of TC members William Z Pope zpope@pobox.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC