RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business Transaction group

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

Peter,

You don't get the full flavor from the BPSS document alone.

Check out the business transaction patterns in UN/CEFACT
UMM (TMWG N090) - chapter 8.  UMM is the source for the
"Business Transaction" ideas in ebXML BPSS.  

UMM includes five business transaction patterns.
The transaction patterns are declarative from a business 
point of view.  For example, one of the patterns implements
one of the most common business interaction patterns,
offer-acceptance.  There is a lot more to the implementation
of the pattern than request-response, although it is built
on top of request-response.

The business transactions themselves were based on the
following rules of engagement for electronic commerce:
1. PART 2 UNIFORM RULES OF CONDUCT FOR INTERCHANGE OF TRADE DATA BY
TELETRANSMISSION (UNCID), CHAPTER 2 - Text of the Uniform Rules of Conduct,
http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/texts/d220_d.htm
2. UN/ECE RECOMMENDATION No.26, THE COMMERCIAL USE OF INTERCHANGE
AGREEMENTS FOR ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE,
http://www.unece.org/trade/untdid/texts/d240_d.htm
3. The Commercial use of Electronic Data Interchange, Section of Business
Law American Bar Association, A report and model trading partner agreement,
http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/catalog/5070258.html.

-Bob Haugen

-----Original Message-----
From:	Peter Furniss [SMTP:peter.furniss@choreology.com]
Sent:	Thursday, July 05, 2001 9:49 AM
To:	Krishna Sankar; business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc:	linkage@interaccess.com
Subject:	RE: ebXML in W3C?  and OASIS Business Transaction group

Just had a quick look at ebXML BPSS ( from
http://www.ebxml.org/specs/index.htm ).

It uses the term "Business Transaction" extensively and precisely.

Their Business Transaction covers the exchange of one document between two
parties, or exchange of two documents - request and response between two
parties (only a two party exchange, and only single one-way or single
request-response). I understood that it requires the carrier mechanisms to
ensure that this either works completely or is deemed not to work at all
(and, I assume, that the carrier will ensure both sides have a common view).

This would seem to be just assured delivery, except it is applied to the
semantic, business level as well as simple comms (i.e. if a document is
acknowledged, it means (or can be configured to mean ? not sure) that the
recipient has taken note of it and will apply it as appropriate).

It may be that OASIS BTP would be capable of providing the underlying
support to provide the assurance needed. But more generally BTP is also able
to cover multiple exchanges and multiple parties, and especially, the
possibility of the originator choosing whether to go confirm or cancel an
interaction (or, more typically, choosing some subset among several
interactions).

Peter

------------------------------------------
Peter Furniss
Technical Director, Choreology Ltd
email:  peter.furniss@choreology.com
phone:  +44 20 7670 1679
direct: +44 20 7670 1783
mobile: 07951 536168
13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com]
> Sent: 05 July 2001 14:39
> To: business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: FW: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business Transaction group
>
>
>
> FYI
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Haugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 5:02 AM
> To: 'Krishna Sankar'; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
> Cc: business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business Transaction group
>
>
> 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
>
>