RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014

["Green, Alastair J." <Alastair.Green@choreology.com>]

The industry must hope that the trichotomous effort of WS-CAF ends up in
a similar place to the singular effort of WS-Reliability: infusing a
common effort, alongside OASIS BTP and the dichotomous effort of WS-C+T
aka WS-Tx, in a single open standards committee or working group aimed
at creating one way of doing loosely-coupled two-phase outcomes, aka
business transactions. 

WS-RX provides a good precedent.

Alastair
Choreology Ltd

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Pavlik [mailto:greg.pavlik@oracle.com] 
Sent: 29 July 2005 00:04
To: Green, Alastair J.
Cc: Jorgen Thelin; ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014

There is no specification named WS-CAF. That is the umbrella TLA for the

TC's trichotomous effort.

The point of comparison is interesting: CAF was developed in a 
recognized standards body and had no preceding life in alternative 
public forums. The specs are very, very different from the original 
submissions.

Greg

>  
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: Jorgen Thelin [mailto:jthelin@microsoft.com]
>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:57 AM
>
>> To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
>
>>
>
>> Could you itemize the "significant differences" you envisage?
>
>>
>
>> Did the input documents to the WS-CAF TC undergo any similar
>
>> "significant differences" compared to the current versions
>
>> published by that TC?
>
>>
>
>> I am just trying to understand Oracle's thoughts and
>
>> principles on this topic.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:48 AM
>
>> To: Jorgen Thelin; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
>
>>
>
>> My conjecture is that the specification produced by the WS-RX
>
>> WG will have significant differences from the earlier WS-RM
>
>> specifiaction.
>
>> A new name will prevent confusion.
>
>>
>
>> All the best, Ashok
>
>> 
>
>>
>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>
>> > From: Jorgen Thelin [mailto:jthelin@microsoft.com]
>
>> > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:26 AM
>
>> > To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
>
>> >
>
>> > At least 7 companies are already shipping products implementing the
>
>> > submitted WS-ReliableMessaging specs, so the current name for this
>
>> > spec is already well established in customers minds and the market
>
>> > place at large.
>
>> >
>
>> > According to MSN Search, there are already 10x more
>
>> occurrences of the
>
>> > term WS-RM than for WS-RX. Google produces similar results (modulo
>
>> > confusion with various similarly named radio stations around the
>
>> > world).
>
>> > These figures illustrate how established the current name
>
>> already is
>
>> > in the industry, and how much of an uphill push it would be
>
>> to switch
>
>> > to a new name.
>
>> >
>
>> > Regarding "possible confusion with [the name of] other documents in
>
>> > the same space", the name "Reliable Messaging"
>
>> > is already just as different from "Reliability" as
>
>> "Reliable Exchange"
>
>> > is. This is like saying "oranges are better than apples
>
>> when compared
>
>> > to bananas"! Why make a gratuitous change to something that clearly
>
>> > isn't broken?
>
>> >
>
>> > As a comparison, are there any of the specs being produced by the
>
>> > WS-CAF TC that will be named "WS-CAF". Will Oracle be
>
>> making a similar
>
>> > proposal there too?
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>
>> > From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
>
>> > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 8:51 AM
>
>> > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>> > Subject: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
>
>> >
>
>> > The Oracle folks would like to express our preference on issue
i014.
>
>> >
>
>> > We would like the documents to be named WS-RX (Web Services
>
>> Reliable
>
>> > Exchange).
>
>> > This aligns the names of the documents with the name of the WG.  It
>
>> > also removes possible confusion with other documents in the same
>
>> > space.
>
>> >
>
>> > All the best, Ashok
>
>> > 
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>  
>