RE: (Per Mark Hale),RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business Transactiongroup

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

I'd be interested in a dispassionate conversation about how
those who know both BTP and the ebXML-BP + UMM transaction
protocol think the two compare and contrast.  (The comparers
would need to understand the UMM transaction patterns as
well as BPSS, and don't get hung up on choreography details.)

In other words, set aside anything accusatory, e.g. words
like "conflict" and precedence and MOUs and see how the two
initiatives might relate.  Then we can get all mad at each other later.8-)

My first impressions were that BTP covers a lot of the same ground,
even to the same idea of transactional behavior from the viewpoint
of the initiator.  As UN/CEFACT ebWG gets into collaboration patterns, 
the area of overlap will be larger.

We've just had Jean-Jacques Dubray do a detailed comparison and
binding between ebXML BPSS and BPML.  Something similar needs
to be done with the other collaboration choreography initiatives.

-Bob Haugen

(What was that quote about standards being wonderful because
there were so many of them?)

-----Original Message-----
From:	James Bryce Clark [SMTP:jamie.clark@mmiec.com]
Sent:	Thursday, July 05, 2001 5:53 PM
To:	ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
Cc:	mark.hale@interwoven.com; karl.best@oasis-open.org
Subject:	(Per Mark Hale), RE: ebXML in W3C?  and OASIS Business Transactiongroup

Forwarding this to the BP list from Mark Hale's post to the BTP list.

At 03:32 PM 7/5/01, Mark A. Hale wrote:
>Karl,
>
>I would just like to further support your stance that this is not duplicate
>effort with ebXML.
>
>As an organization that endorsed the BTP submission and also being the ebXML
>POC co-chair at the same time, I reviewed the submission as being entirely
>complementary to ebXML.  I fielded calls from other ebXML organizations in
>the interim between submission and the start date in March.  Most of the
>discussion emphasized that this technology does integrate into ebXML.
>However, ebXML was on a schedule for May and it was not feasible to
>introduce the topic and maintain the final date.  ebXML has been considered
>from the start.  Conversely, BTP is nearing the end of its short life-cycle
>and I would offer that we evaluate its direction at the final f2f to be held
>later this month.
>
>I do not have post privileges on the ebxml-bp mailing list.
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         Mark


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