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

[Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>]

Hi all,

	We need some passion otherwise the conversation could get pretty morose :-)

	On a serious note, I support David's suggestions. My humble suggestion is
also that the conversation should revolve around how can one leverage the
other. Crisp definitions and feature set would help here.

	If the BTP folks are working on a slice, let them finish the work and then
ebXML can leverage the work. It is not a compare and contrast but how both
can fill-in the pieces of a puzzle and who has which pieces (sorry for the
pieces analogy, was just doing Lego with my son :-))

	cheers

  |-----Original Message-----
  |From: Welsh, David [mailto:David.Welsh@nordstrom.com]
  |Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 5:42 PM
  |To: 'Bob Haugen'; '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 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
  |>
  |
  |------------------------------------------------------------------
  |To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
  |"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
  |