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

["Welsh, David" <David.Welsh@nordstrom.com>]

I hear the term 'business transaction' used by both groups and at the same time statements claiming no duplicate effort, yet without specific details ! So in the interest of clarity, I'd also welcome hearing objective coversation where both sides show how the 2 compare and contrast as 'BUSINESS
transactions'.
Thanks
-Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Haugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 5:25 PM
> To: 'James Bryce Clark'; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
> Cc: mark.hale@interwoven.com; karl.best@oasis-open.org; 
> 'Peter Furniss';
> 'Eric Newcomer'
> Subject: RE: (Per Mark Hale), RE: ebXML in W3C? and OASIS Business
> Transactiongroup
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
>