RE: [business-transaction] RE: [business-transaction-comment] Public Comment

["Haugen Robert" <Robert.Haugen@choreology.com>]

>> (I have not been arguing for BTP.)

> OK, maybe there's confusion there because 
> having been involved with BTP from the start, 
> when I see terms like "generic 2PC" 
> (maybe I used that term?!), "cancel", "confirm", 
> "compensation" etc. I assume BTP. But if it isn't 
> BTP, then it's yet another protocol and as you've 
> already said, we don't want to continue the proliferation ;-)

When I see a series of initiatives trying to fill the same business
transaction space (RosettaNet, ebXML BPSS, UNCEFACT BCF, BTP, WS-T,
WS-TXM*), and they can all be united into one protocol, and the
confusion of business transaction protocols is impeding commercial
adoption*, I think it's time for convergence.

How the convergence happens is a political issue, as you have stated.
But (as you also stated) you didn't get the WS-T proponents to join
WS-CAF, either.  So far, neither of us has the political strategy
licked.  This is just discussion.


* I know each of those initiatives does more than loosely-coupled
business transactions.

** If need be, I'll figure out how to write the details behind that
statement without naming names.