|
Sally,
I agree with you. We can start with ebXML and I
hope that Web Services will follow.
We already have direct applications of ebMS,
ebBP, ebXML Registry, and CPPA for concrete FERA-based SOA
architectural concepts. For example, as you know we are now finalizing our
response for ebMS-based Versatile B2B Gateway where we already have ebMS
referenced as one of the communication protocols in FERA-based SOA. I strongly
believe that ebBP can easely integrate with FERA-based SOA if they
start leveraging SOA Information Model first and an additional
integration layer can be provided as well via SOA Collaboration
Semantics. We already use ebXML Registry and Repository to define and fully
support SOA Information Model and of course we use CPPA for defining protocol
profiles for participants in a collaboration. Interesting aspect of the ebXML
Registry and Repository role is that ebXML Registry TC can also consider
use of SAO IM as a Registry Information Model (RIM) extension that will provide
a natural integration of the registry in SOA.
What is the next practical step?
Goran
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 10:10
PM
Subject: [ebsoa] Fwd: [ebxml-bp] ebxml-jc
12/8/2005: Conformance for and compatibility between ebXML Specs
HI all
I think this relates to our interest in standards convergence and working
with the other TCs who are pursuing the same or similar goals we are.
Date:
Wed, 07 Dec 2005 13:53:55 -0800
From: Monica J Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
To: ebxml-jc@lists.oasis-open.org,
ebXML BP <ebxml-bp@lists.oasis-open.org>,
ebXML
Regrep
<regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>,
ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org,
ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org,
iic
<ebxml-iic@lists.oasis-open.org>,
ebsoa@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ebxml-bp] ebxml-jc 12/8/2005:
Conformance for and compatibility between ebXML
Specs
First,
forgive the cross-posting.
There are some points that may be of
interest to consider for the
specifications originally part of the ebXML
framework. As a followup to
the ebxml-jc meeting today, see the
reference on the conformance and
usage profile statements in the working
draft of ebMS v3.0. We have
discussed conformance and compatibility
(historical loose coupling and
high alignment) of the specifications of
the ebXML framework recently in
CPP/A and ebBP. To a more limited
extent, this is also a question for
Reg/Rep to consider.
>ebMS
v3.0 draft reference - Document Description:
>Draft of a conformance
Appendix section for ebMS3 (Dec 7, 2005).
>
>View Document
Details:
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/document.php?document_id=15832
>
>Download
Document:
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/download.php/15832/ebms3-Conformance-2.pdf
>
(Note:
There is no public post on this draft document).
For ebBP, we
discussed the minimum set of requirements for our technical
specification and how it could be used with others in the ebXML
framework. We attempted to show the value of the specification itself
and recognizing additional value with use with other technologies and in
the context of compatibility with ebXML framework. Here is an excerpt
from the draft text for information:
As with all the other
specifications in the ebXML framework, an ebBP process definition may be
effectively used with other technologies. From
the onset, these
specifications have sought to be aligned as much as practical and capable of
being composed together and capable of being
used with other
technologies. That flexibility and composability are important aspects not
only to the adoption of these standards but their
effective use and
successful deployment into heterogeneous environments and across domains.
In the context of this technical specification, Business
Collaborations may be executed using the ebBP process definition and/or used
with other
technologies. As it relates to the other specifications in
the ebXML framework, an ebBP process definition supports the loose coupling
and
alignment needed to execute Business Collaborations. This
specification may also be used when several other software components are
used to
enable the execution of Business Collaborations. One example is
the use of web services mapped to business transactions activities. The ebBP
technical specification is used to specify the business process related
configuration parameters for configuring a BSI to execute and monitor
these collaborations. The ebBP business semantics and syntax are also
well-suited to enable definition of modular process building blocks that
are combined in complex activities to meet user community needs.
[1]
I'd encourage some thoughts and suggestions on simple yet
consistent
(not exact but compatible) statements that may help
effectively
communicate the value of each specification while also show
they can be
effectively used together where required and configured as
needed.
[1] Reference:
Spec pr r02:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=15524&wg_abbrev=ebxml-bp
As
amended by our recent discussion on composability (and its
overloading):
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200512/msg00006.html
|