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: [business-transaction] Fw: [bt-spec] WS-X



Thanks Bill, I thought someone else had copied it to the mail list.

Bill Flood
Sybase




----- Forwarded by Bill Flood/SYBASE on 08/14/2002 09:40 AM -----
William Z Pope <zpope@pobox.com>

08/14/2002 07:13 AM
Please respond to zpope

       
        To:        bill.flood@sybase.com, Mark Little <mark_little@hp.com>
        cc:        BT - spec <bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>, Mark Potts <mark.potts@talkingblocks.com>, Peter Furniss <peter.furniss@choreology.com>, "Cho, Pyounguk" <pyounguk.cho@iona.com>
        Subject:        RE: [bt-spec] WS-X



 
Bill,
I've been on the road with limited email access and so just reading your email.  Thank you.  I think
this is a very well reasoned analysis of the situation.  It well describes the crossroads at which we
now find ourselves.
 
This email never went to the wider business-transaction list.  It would benefit from distribution to
that audience.  Would you consider doing so?
 
Regards,
=bill
-----Original Message-----
From:
bill.flood@sybase.com [mailto:bill.flood@sybase.com]
Sent:
Saturday, August 10, 2002 2:20 PM
To:
Mark Little
Cc:
BT - spec; Mark Potts; Peter Furniss; Cho, Pyounguk
Subject:
[bt-spec] WS-X


Mark,


Considering the submission of WS-Transaction, WS-Coordination, and BPEL4WS (Business Process Execution Language for Web Services), we are at an interesting point in Standard's Body evolution and the standards adoption process.  


Sensing some confusion  with Web Services standards between various standards organizations, IBM, Microsoft, BEA, et al, create an organization, WS-I, that purports to alleviate some of the confusion by defining what's critical to be tested for interoperability and what interoperability means to the standards.  It has promise of being a noble cause.  


This WS-I consortium entrusts itself with "defining" interoperability.  The  founders are permanent board members and board minutes are never public (even to the contributing members).  Later some of the same founding companies that sit on the "interoperability" board author a set of standards (the WS-X series) and offer them up to their local international standards body, OASIS.  Some of the proposals are unique or complimentary to existing work and some are overlapping.  I think it's safe to say that some of the aspects of the proposals are causing fear, uncertainty, and doubt, in the industry (FUD) and that the current situation would seem to be at odds with the goal of WS-I, the interoperability consortium set up to alleviate confusion in the first place (remember the noble cause).  


Now OASIS is in the painful position of having to take action and account for the interoperability consortium's influence - a consortium  made up of some of the biggest players in the industry who are also involved with these standards organizations at some level.  


It's my belief that the best way to deal with this situation is for the standards body to address proposals in light of existing working groups and this is the job of the standards body leadership.   OASIS has been fairly silent up to now, I'm sure, because they are examining their options carefully as we are about to set some precedence (not unlike patent/RAND issues).  


I hope that the standards bodies find the strength to drive the standards process as best meets the needs of their entire constituency.  In this case, that means examining each proposal in depth and taking a clear, well communicated, course of action that eliminates redundancy and confusion.  If the standards body cannot accept new proposals based on existing TC work, then the standards loose their effectiveness in defining what is "standard in the first place".  Once clear set of standards is much more effective than many ambiguous and overlapping standards.  Situations like this easily cost the industry millions of dollars in wasted effort.


WS-Transaction - This proposal is in essence a simplified non-normative version of BTP (with exception of some material).  If the redundant parts of the proposal have capabilities that do not exist in the existing standards proposals then the submitters should join the affected WG and modify the existing standard (that happens to already be in public review after a long processing cycle in TC).  In essence a new version can be hatched based on the merits of the proposal.


WS-Coordination - This proposal is unique and stands on its own as a way of setting up "distributed SOAP transaction servers" - aka a VAN.


BPEL4WS - This proposal is redundant but has the distinct benefit of merging XLANG and WSFL, two of the three major business process languages (BPML is one other I can think of easily).  I'd be happy to get rid of three standards in exchange for two any day.


I think the implication here is that if OASIS does not adopt the proposals future submissions will go to W3C (or yet another new body) and we still don't have clarity.  What this assumption does not take into account is that W3C and OASIS *are* fundamentally interested in interoperability and that they may not be willing to compromise their integrity by "clouding the water" even more.  A little marketing for OASIS/W3C/SOAP Builder interoperability efforts might be in order.

Regards and let's hope for the best.


Bill Flood

Sybase



Mark Little <mark_little@hp.com>

08/10/2002 02:00 AM

       
       To:        Mark Potts <mark.potts@talkingblocks.com>, "Cho, Pyounguk" <pyounguk.cho@iona.com>, Peter Furniss <peter.furniss@choreology.com>, BT - spec <bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>

       cc:        

       Subject:        Re: [bt-spec] WS-transaction..




Mark, I agree that a teleconference is in order. Middle of next week would
be better for me (and either before 5pm our time or after 7pm would be even
better, given that I'll be juggling a baby at the same time :-)

No revisionist history here: WSCF was always intended to support BTP as just
another extended transaction model. So, if my colleagues in IBM continue in
that light, it should be possible for us to co-exist. We will definitely
have to see what happens when this hits a standards body though.

Mark.

----------------------------------------------
Dr. Mark Little, Distinguished Engineer,
Transactions Architect, HP Arjuna Labs
Email: mark_little@hp.com
Phone: +44 191 2606216
Fax  : +44 191 2606250


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Potts" <mark.potts@talkingblocks.com>
To: "Mark Little" <mark_little@hp.com>; "Cho, Pyounguk"
<pyounguk.cho@iona.com>; "Peter Furniss" <peter.furniss@choreology.com>;
"BT - spec" <bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 7:56 PM
Subject: RE: [bt-spec] WS-transaction..


Hey before we all get fired up ( just like the ebXML folks did with us
originally ) lets take a step back and look at this rationally....

This is just my perspective, and yes I did know this was coming somewhat,
but there is little difference between this spec and BTP  -
WS-Coordination is separated from the transactions types (WS-Transaction )
such that WS-Coordination can coordinate different transactions models, BTP
simply declares the transaction model being used ( atom or cohesion ) within
the context. With some changes ( minor ) on either side BTP can fit in
easily to WS-Coordination and therefore BPEL. Of course there are other
differences but on the whole anyone involved in BTP should recognise a lot
in the specs.

We (as BTP TC) should be looking to this as an opportunity for "convergence"
where we can have IBM, Microsoft, BEA, Oracle and some of us smaller minows
all back one standard. There is no definition of where this work will end up
as a standard (as yet)  but again we should encourage in whatever way we
can, those involved to take this to OASIS where we can help get WS-
Coordination and WS-Transaction "fully baked" and leverage the work
completed in the BTP TC.

I suspect the TC needs to get together on a call so at least we have a
common statement and position on this we can discuss with customers and our
companies.

Regards Mark.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark_little@hp.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 11:20 AM
> To: Cho, Pyounguk; alex@ceponkus.org; Mark Potts; Peter Furniss; BT -
> spec
> Subject: Re: [bt-spec] WS-transaction..
>
>
> FYI this actually started out as the Web Services
> Coordination Framework
> with HP, IBM and Iona but due to some politics which I don't
> even want to
> understand, the participant list changed. (A very long and
> not so happy
> story!)
>
> Mark.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cho, Pyounguk" <pyounguk.cho@iona.com>
> To: <alex@ceponkus.org>; "Mark Potts"
> <mark.potts@talkingblocks.com>; "Peter
> Furniss" <peter.furniss@choreology.com>; "BT - spec"
> <bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 6:08 PM
> Subject: [bt-spec] WS-transaction..
>
>
> Hello BTPers,
>     Please, check out the following link. Finally, IBM and MS
> together with
> BEA have come up with ws-transaction spec.
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-949049.html
>
> Regards,
> Pyounguk
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
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