RE: [wsbpel] Liaison Activity - WAS: [wsbpel] CEFACT Liaison Review

[Sid Askary <saskary@nuperus.com>]

Dear Tony,

Thank you for your kind clarification.  I was indeed referring to the 
working groups - and not the specifications themselves.  I also appreciate 
that you offer your statement of support for our W3C liaison activity - 
although I did not question that activity.  Further, my general point was 
not so much that we would benefit from such an activity (any benefit, I 
hope, would be mutual to both organizations), rather, I was referring to 
our W3C liaison activity as building a case for what we could consider 
relevant - on the "degree of relevance" scale - to the task at hand.

I also appreciate your insight for anticipating the need for liaison 
activity with future BPSS activities.  And it is precisely, in light of 
current announcement, that our liaison activities are the topic of 
discussion.

Additionally, you cite UN/CEFACT as representing a "wealth of experience in 
business matters".  Again, that organization's credentials is not the topic 
of discussion - I have had direct contact with many competent individuals 
who were/are participants and I hold them in high regard.  Rather, it is 
the "degree of relevance" and a matter of "priorities" given the early 
stages of our TC.

Let me use an analogy.  Imagine that we are witness to the early stages of 
an effort.  A group of auto manufacturers and designers have come together 
to specify a common description of "Engine Building" (with all due respect 
to colleagues at AIAG).  Other "Engine Building" organizations - maybe 
aircraft - would qualify as having pertinent input into the common 
language, as they are in the business of building engines as well.

So, the original "car Engine" team establishes a liaison with the "aircraft 
Engine" group (they already have something similar going on with submarine 
builders who are also working on submersible "Engine Building" specification).

While still in the early stages of their work, at some point in near 
future, the "aircraft engine" manufactures decide to abandon work on 
"Engine Building" specification and concentrate on a different area - let's 
say "interior cabin" design specification.  Almost simultaneously, a group 
of "jet engine" designers who had worked on that original
"Aircraft Engine" specification wants to continue the work on "Engine 
Building" specification under a boat builders association (not to mention 
the fact that boat and the auto team are sister organizations belonging to 
a parent builder association).

For car "Engine Building" specification team, WHICH ORGANIZATION should 
have priority in terms of visibility and mutual cooperation - given the 
problem domain and expertise and organizational affiliation:  The boat 
"Engine Building" spec team or the aircraft "Interior Cabin" spec team?

One is either in the business of creating "Engine Building" specification, 
or is an end user of such specification - not direct participants via 
liaison.  Therefore, it stands to reason that by their very nature, end 
user organizations are deemed less relevant for the IMMIDIATE task at hand 
and are lower on the chronological priority list (one would hope) of those 
from whom one wishes to solicit input and cooperation.

When, as a TC, we are close to the finish line, we could revisit the end 
user direct liaison issue, perhaps, in a marketing sub-group.   To be sure, 
there are precedents where other organizations abandon an effort in favor 
of supporting another - towards the completion cycle - and generally, such 
gestures are delivered through the parent organization (i.e. Rosettanet in 
case of OASIS).

Lastly, to further the analogy, there are still more relevant groups and 
consortia in the "Building Engine" specification arena (i.e. B_ig P_arts 
M_anufacturer I_nstitute) with which one could consider liaison activity in 
order to further enhance the work product.

In fact, it it common practice to re-visit these "Relations" as unforeseen 
events occur.  I think, as a TC, we need to revisit our liaison priorities, 
given the recent changes.


Regards,
Sid Askary

At 04:14 AM 9/23/2003, Fletcher, Tony wrote:
>Dear Sid, David and others,
>
>Your distinction between liaison and observer seems very reasonable to
>me, though probably not the only one.
>
>Further clarification:
>
>WSCI is an input to the W3C WS-Choreography group.  While it is
>undoubtedly a useful input document the groups' current thinking is that
>its output choreography description language is likely to be different
>and not directly traceable back to WSCI.  However, the general point you
>make is that we will benefit from a liaison with this group and I agree
>with that.  We do in fact already have that as an active liaison and
>both Steve (Ross-Talbot) and Martin (Chapman), the co-chairs of the
>WS-Choreography group were present at the F2F last week and Martin gave
>a liaison report on the Friday morning.
>
>I have always anticipated that we would need a separate liaison with the
>BPSS work and I know that Monica (Martin) has been 'in the frame' to be
>our liaison person, but the future of the BPSS has been 'uncertain' (at
>least in the public view) for sometime as things in UN/CEFACT with
>regard to BPSS could be described as 'rocky'.  This uncertainty was
>(mainly) resolved later on last Friday with the announcement of the
>creation of a new OASIS group in the ebXML family to take BPSS forward.
>I would support a liaison to this new OASIS TC.
>
>Given the wealth of experience in business matters that UN/CEFACT
>represents I urge that we continue to have a liaison in that direction
>as well.
>
>I do not see any reason to limit the liaisons at present.
>
>Best Regards     Tony
>A M Fletcher
>
>Cohesions  (TM)
>
>Business transaction management software for application coordination
>www.choreology.com
>
>Choreology Ltd., 68 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9LJ     UK
>Tel: +44 (0) 870 7390076   Fax: +44 (0) 870 7390077  Mobile: +44 (0)
>7801 948219
>tony.fletcher@choreology.com     (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sid Askary [mailto:saskary@nuperus.com]
>Sent: 23 September 2003 02:25
>To: Frank Leymann; David RR Webber - XML ebusiness; Martin Chapman
>Cc: 'BPEL OASIS'
>Subject: [wsbpel] Liaison Activity - WAS: [wsbpel] CEFACT Liaison Review
>
>
>
>As of today, there are 2 other general-purpose business process
>definition/choreography
>languages under consideration in a standards body:  BPSS in OASIS and
>WSCI
>in W3C.  For
>the near term, these and the associated underlying standards on which
>each
>is dependant
>should be part of the liaison activity.  Everything else is
>non-normative
>and perhaps
>out of scope for this group.
>
>As for the difference between Liaison and Observer, I would say that in
>the
>former,
>there is a great deal more cross-pollination and active engagement (in
>the
>form of
>normative bi-directional presentations and mutual consideration,
>specific
>approaches,
>etc.).  The purpose of this activity, in many cases, is the avoidance of
>
>the invention
>of the perennial wheel.
>
>While in the later, there is, at best, a one-way channel for allowing
>information
>gathering by one party.  No feedback mechanism is deemed necessary.
>
>My 0.02$
>
>Sid Askary
>
>At 10:30 AM 9/22/2003, David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote:
> >Martin,
> >
> >CEFACT has launched a completely new direction, and
> >made press releases, and made decision vis their
> >relationship with OASIS  - since we made our decision.
> >They have also had a Plenary meeting in Seoul, and
> >more changes and items occurred there as well.  The
> >bases have been moved.
> >
> >I think if we had known about these at the time - we would have
> >deferred our decision until we had a better understanding.
> >
> >Essentially we made our decision in the dark - and we
> >now need to re-visit in the light of these events over the last few
> >weeks.
> >
> >Thanks, DW. ======================================================
> >Message text written by "Martin Chapman"
> > >
> >David,
> >
> >For those of us not closely connected with CEFACT, could you tell us
> >what these unforeseen events are? Otherwise I'm not sure I have enough
> >information at hand to decide accordingly.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >  Martin.<
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
> >of
> >the OASIS TC), go to
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workg
>roup.php.
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
>the OASIS TC), go to
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgr
>oup.php.
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of 
>the OASIS TC), go to 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.