Hi Dave,
The proposed CPPA charter includes several suggested liaison activities
with w3c groups, oasis groups, and possibly
others. Web services are proposed as one kind of specification to monitor
(watching where WSFL, BPMI, XLang
et alia end up being digested.) One reason for this interest is in
allowing CPPs and CPAs to link to other "business process
specifications". This is in keeping with the modularity ebXML has
endorsed-- to permit each specification area
to be used independently of other ebXML specifications as well as having
good integration points. Some
issues I see here are whether and how to keep the "service" and "action"
tags, how to generalize CPAs to handle
multi-role collaborations, and so on. If it made sense to use CPPs and
CPAs in connection with web service flows,
even if these were defined in some "non-standard" specification, why
preclude opening up the CPPA specification to
allow creating a CPA that referenced BPs described in accordance
with non-ebXML notations? If the other notations
are being used, and CPPA is to promote faster convergence
to agreeing upon interoperable software configurations,
it would certainly be within our intended scope.
At any rate, consideration of these issues, and monitoring
developments parallel to ebXML BPSS,
is not a scope change from the proposed charter, IMO.
Bye
Dale
-----Original Message-----
From: Welsh, David
Sent: Thu 7/19/2001 6:15 PM
To: 'Martin W Sachs';
ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Bob Haugen (E-mail); James
Bryce Clark (E-mail 2); James Clark (E-mail); Paul R. Levine (E-mail)
Subject: RE: New work and loose ends
Marty,
Sorry to jump in, but I was trying to understand
the frame of reference / direction that's being used when it comes to the
suggested changes / new work items to ebXML CPA-CPP.
There seems to be a
lot of 'really cool technical stuff' being proposed, no doubt about it (!),
but I've seen references being made to look at non-related ebXML / "foreign"
specifications in the CPPA TC work plan, where some of these reference
topics (like WSFL) are still proprietary as far as I
know.
Is this a
wish that the CPPA TC do a technology 'look ahead' to things that might get
commonly adopted like what SOAP eventually went thru, re W3C and IPR, and /
or is this meant as potential alignment efforts to own ebXML developments;
which may or may not eventually be something that's a 'out of
scope
thing'.
Maybe I'm still working off of the original ebXML concept
that we're focused on building upon established standards (ex. W3C, ISO,
..), as opposed to what might one day become a standard (maybe), in the
absence of seeing anything mentioned to the contrary recently on the various
ebXML related news
lists.
Just asking !
All the best in your up
coming meetings.
Thanks again
-Dave
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 11:37 AM
> To:
ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: New work and loose
ends
>
>
> I have attached two documents that discuss
potential
> maintenance and new
> work items that I will review
next week.
>
> Regards,
> Marty
>
> (See
attached file: CPA-CPP-changes.pdf)List of work items as
> of the end
of
> the Vienna ebXML meeting. This includes additional
discussion
> of some items
> in
the
>
CPPA.new.work document below
>
> (See attached file:
CPPA.new.work.pdf)Summary of all proposed work and
> loose ends as of
today. I will be using this as slides next week.
>
>
**************************************************************
>
***********************
>
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J.
Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY
10598
> 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes
address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address:
mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
>
**************************************************************
>
***********************
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single
word
"unsubscribe" in the body to:
ebxml-cppa-request@lists.oasis-open.org