[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [chairs] relations with W3C
Karl Best>> Please let me know what specific issues your TC may have including but not limited to obstacles to working together, divergent goals, IP issues, scheduling issues, what groups you need to work with, etc. Karl, Here is the consensus on w3c and Oasis coordination from the ebXML CPPA group that I took away from our discussion today. Bye, Dale Moberg Although CPPA makes use of (by citation and by incorporation of namespaces & elements) several w3c specifications, and so has dependencies on w3c work, there is one main area of potential overlap-- the usual precondition for duplication and waste of effort. The WSDL WG of the Web Service activity does touch on some areas that are variously dealt with by BPSS (which CPPs and CPAs can reference) and by the CPA itself. In general, both WSDL and CPAs concern how some higher level business process layer of description can be or will be layered over and implemented by various middleware details (transports, security, packaging, protocol options such as reliable messaging, and so on). WSDL is animated by describing interfaces and their bindings. CPP and CPAs generally do not describe the interface details (except descriptions by payload document types), but do describe collaboration process mapppings onto a selection of transport, security and similar options. Unlike WSDL, properties of both sending and receiving configurations are described in CPPs and CPAs. WSDL focuses on one side, the service. WSDL does not deal with the idea of negotiating which options will be selected and implemented between collaboration participants. It is not obvious to the CPPA members, how a useful division of labor can be created. The CPPA group is forming a subteam to look into options for technical "integration"-- by which we mean, incorporating (by xlinks or just simple node insertion) pieces of WSDL within CPPs or CPAs. Three CPPA members are also members of the WSDL working group. The group also suggested that the Web Services architecture WG might produce models and vocabulary that aid in deciding how to differentiate tasks, and also coordinate the activities. It seems worthwhile to avoid useless reduplication of effort as well as the confusion in the marketplace. Maybe the architecture group could be persuaded that one thing a web services architecture is to do is to describe the boundaries that are subject to standardization, and then define those aspects of the boundaries that need standardization to promote interoperable implementations.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC