[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
Alistair writes: > Why isn?t the TC called WS-RM? Because you wanted to pull in greater support, critically Oracle. The TC isn't named WS-RM because OASIS TC process guidelines *require* that each TC be uniquely named: The Charter of the TC, which includes only the following items: a. The name of the TC, such name not to have been previously used for an OASIS TC and not to include any trademarks or service marks not owned by OASIS. The proposed TC name is subject to TC Administrator approval and may not include any misleading or inappropriate names. The proposed name must specify any acronyms or abbreviations of the name that shall be used to refer to the TC. WSRM as a TC name was already taken (and if you think that the choice of that acronym was not intentional, I want some of what you're smoking). > Overall, I think both vendors and end-users want one spec, not two, and this is the kind of > pragmatic result that you should welcome. I agree that what *everyone* wants is one spec, not two, or three or five. However, what I hear from customers all the time is that they can't keep track of all the WS-* specs. The feature that people want is reliable messaging. I have never once heard someone ask me for "reliable exchange". We only chose that name because we HAD to choose a name that was a) different than every other TC name used and b) had some relationship to the nature of the spec(s) that would be produced. I would strongly urge that we NOT change the name of the specifications so as to not increase the level of confusion in the marketplace. Frankly, I think we're spending entirely too much time on this non-issue. Changing the name of the spec will not improve its technical merits. A name change is not focused on improving interoperability or the clarity of the current prose in the spec. Cheers, Christopher Ferris STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html phone: +1 508 377 9295 "Green, Alastair J." <Alastair.Green@choreology.com> wrote on 07/28/2005 06:45:31 PM: > Jorgen (a much respected colleague) ? get over it! > > Why isn?t the TC called WS-RM? Because you wanted to pull in greater support, critically Oracle. > > It?s not your private property any more. That?s what happens when it escapes into the wild. The > spec will change according to different rules and with different balances of power. It?s a good > precedent for your workshop specs, and you should let it evolve ? I think you want the standing > that comes from getting Oracle to recognize reality and stop trying to create the alternate stack. > Multiple inputs, one output. > > Same spec++, different name ? that?s a good deal for Microsoft. Forward to WS-TX (instead of the > unwritten WS-Tx), and then you won?t have to worry about WS-CAF. > > Overall, I think both vendors and end-users want one spec, not two, and this is the kind of > pragmatic result that you should welcome. There will be bigger issues where you guys are going to > have to accept amendment and change to something that may seem to you be ?a done deal? because > you?ve hashed it over in the world of the workshops -- so this is perhaps a useful cultural experience. > > It?s not EJB, because it?s still in process, never had the standing that it will have emerging > from an open standards body. Cf, BPEL à WS-BPEL. > > It?s perfectly reasonable to go for a spec name that conforms with the TC name. And it?s not the > end of the world either way. > > Of all the companies to worry about the cost of changing some marketing literature? J > > Alastair > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jorgen Thelin [mailto:jthelin@microsoft.com] > Sent: 28 July 2005 22:47 > To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014 > > So are you really suggesting we should change the name of the specification every time we make any > "significant" change to the spec document(s)? > > Isn't that what spec versioning and XML Namespaces are for? > > Otherwise, we might end up with something with EJB v1.0, EJC v1.0 and EJD v1.0 rather that EJB v1. > 0, EJB v2.0 and EJB v3.0, to use a different illustration. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 12:37 PM > To: Jorgen Thelin; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014 > > It's early in the life of the WG so it's hard to tell, > but a number of issues have been raised that may significantly > impact functionality -- e.g. the semantics of AtMostOnce. > > All the best, Ashok > > > > -----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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]