Re: [soa-rm] Why do we need SOA? (proposal for Introduction text)

[Matthew MacKenzie <mattm@adobe.com>]

Please discuss this elsewhere.

Thanks,
Matt

Hamid Ben Malek wrote:

> ** [JMC] ** I think you may have missed the announcement for the new 
> WS-RX TC, not to mention WSS and other TCs :)
>
> * [Hamid]: * Let me tell you the story of WS-RX. We built 
> WS-Reliability spec for two years, and two months before Microsoft and 
> IBM decided to create a new TC (WS-RX), we knew about that. We had 
> many discussions and arguments with Microsoft and IBM about the agenda 
> of WS-RX (especially the references to their specs such as WS-Policy, 
> WS-Trust, etc… which are not yet Oasis standards). The result of the 
> discussion was that we could not make any convergence or suitable 
> agreement. Microsoft and IBM will spend at least a year and half 
> before WS-RX is voted. Our spec WS-Reliability has been an Oasis 
> standard for some time now, and it is currently being used in ebMS-3. 
> Microsoft is not in a hurry of voting WS-RX as quickly as possible 
> because all what it cares about is that as long as the vote is close 
> enough to the release of Longhorn, that is fine for them. On the other 
> hand, IBM is in a hurry of completing WS-RX and it will start to get 
> worried about this. What will happen in the future is that 
> WS-Reliability is more likely to evolve to the same content as WS-RX 
> but without the dependencies of the proprietary specs such as 
> WS-Policy, WS-Trust, and so forth that Microsoft is trying to push 
> with WS-RX.
>
> Anyway, this discussion is out of subject. My point here is that when 
> I talk west, you talk east. WS-* specs are not SOA. I was not talking 
> about WS-* specs. I was talking only about SOA. WS-* specs are low 
> level protocols for SOA which is a higher layer. I said that Microsoft 
> is not interested in standardizing SOA. For example, have you seen the 
> architecture of Indigo being pushed by Microsoft as a standard? Of 
> course not.
>
> ** [JMC] ** Some may say that that is too strong a statement, and that 
> the Semantic Web fits that bill.
>
> * [Hamid]: * I disagree with you that semantic web is The instrument 
> of the future of the Internet.
>