RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business Transaction group

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

The ebXML BPSS and UN/CEFACT UMM also have a 
transaction protocol and transaction patterns.  It is also
the same as the RosettaNet transaction protocol, and
the lower-level business signals that enable the transaction
protocol are also embedded in the ebXML Message Service.
The transaction patterns are declarative.  I suspect the
reason even ebXML people don't recognize this is that
they have focused on the procedural choreography aspects
of the BPSS.

So I think there is a possibility of a major conflict, although
I have not read the BTP protocol.

-Bob Haugen

P.S. I probably can't successfully post to the Oasis BT list,
so Krishna, maybe you can forward this message.

-----Original Message-----
From:	Krishna Sankar [SMTP:ksankar@cisco.com]
Sent:	Thursday, July 05, 2001 1:15 AM
To:	tony.am.fletcher@bt.com; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
Cc:	business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:	RE: ebXML in W3C?  and OASIS Business Transaction group

Tony/James,

	Haven't seen any takers on this. So let me take a first stab at it. Here it
goes:

	The BTP TC has very focused charter - to develop XML based *protocol* for
long lasting transactions across different enterprises over the internet. I
don't see any conflict with the BTP and the ebXML Business Processes. In
fact, I think the BTP will compliment and complement (:-)) and make it
easier for the ebXML business process (in the areas of trx across the
internet).

	just my 1c (lost the other c in the market :-( in case anybody is
wondering)

	What are other views ? Also, what exactly is the overlap ? I haven't seen
the MOU. Is it available on the web or can someone send me a copy ?

cheers & hope you all had a productive July 4th


  |-----Original Message-----
  |From: tony.am.fletcher@bt.com [mailto:tony.am.fletcher@bt.com]
  |Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 7:37 AM
  |To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
  |Subject: RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business Transaction group
  |
  |
  |Dear All,
  |
  |submit BPSS to W3C?
  |
  |Seems rather funny to me.  UN/CEFACT is an arm of the United
  |Nations and you
  |can't get much more international than that, can you?  For all
  |the good work
  |that it has done, at the end of the day W3C is a US based not-for-profit
  |organisation.  I agree however that there is a practical challenge for
  |UN/CEFACT to produce output that commands the status at least
  |that accorded
  |to W3C outputs.  I also agree with a perception mentioned below that the
  |W3C, up till now at least, has been seen as tackling the more the syntax
  |issues, whereas OASIS and other organisations have tackled the
  |application
  |of those syntaxes.  The messaging (protocol) area is clearly a grey one
  |where W3C may have a role to play.  However, I would have thought that in
  |the business process area UN/CEFACT and OASIS should be able to
  |stand-alone
  |under the banner of ebXML.
  |
  |Talking of OASIS, I noticed with concern, the post from James Bryce Clark
  |that indicated that OASIS has started up its own new TC on business
  |transactions.  I would appreciate it if someone would clarify rationale
  |behind this, else I hope that OASIS will immediately close this group and
  |direct the participants to the ebXML business process group instead.  If
  |there is not a clear statement or swift action from OASIS people
  |will wonder
  |what the value of the MoU is.
  |
  |Best Regards Tony
  |
  |A. M. Fletcher
  |BTexact Technologies
  |    01473 644526     +44 1473 644526      m +44 (0) 7740 739490
  |   Fax: +44
  |(0) 1473 646291
  |   Callisto House /261/pp46 (B81-MH), Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath,
  |Ipswich  IP5 3RE    UK
  |  tony.am.fletcher@bt.com
  |
  |British Telecommunications plc
  |Registered Office - 81 Newgate Street,  London,  EC1A 7AJ
  |Registered in England no 1800000
  |
  |This electronic message contains information from British
  |Telecommunications
  |plc which may be privileged or confidential. The information is
  |intended to
  |be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not
  |the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
  |distribution
  |or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have
  |received this electronic message in error, please notify us by
  |telephone or
  |email (to the numbers or address above) immediately.
  |
  |
  |-----Original Message-----
  |From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com]
  |Sent: 03 July 2001 23:31
  |To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
  |Subject: RE: ebXML in W3C? (was) Re: 2 July BP meeting notes and 16 July
  |BP meeting notice
  |
  |
  |Hi all,
  |
  |	From what I know and hear and talk, W3C is more fundamental in
  |nature and
  |OASIS is more "application" oriented. XML, Encryption, DSIG,.. all fit in
  |the W3C bucket. But things like registry, business process,
  |ebXML fit in the
  |OASIS bucket. Of course, there are always exceptions.
  |
  |	IMHO, OASIS should be arbitrator on things like WSFL, registries,
  |... And
  |like James pointed out, OASIS should establish a relationship/precedence
  |work with W3C. And yes, it would be a shame if ebXML ends up as
  |preliminary
  |work/science projects towards other standards which cannibalize
  |and nibble
  |ebXML away :-(
  |
  |	just my 1c
  |
  |cheers
  |
  |
  |------------------------------------------------------------------
  |To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
  |"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
  |


------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org