[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] WS vs ebXML poll
Strange poll, 1) The option "Web Services make more sense" is weaker than "ebXML is superior", and therefore likely to get votes and 2) I can't see how people can really see these two technologies as condradicting, we use web services _and_ ebXML, but each for a different purposes. Apples and oranges, which is superior?!? Regards, Gummi Haf ------------------------------------------ Gudmundur Hafsteinsson - gummi@dimonsoftware.com Dimon Software - www.dimonsoftware.com "... 'cause that's what tiggers do the best!" - Tigger ------------------------------------------ |--------+-----------------------> | | Jean-Jacques | | | Dubray | | | <jjd@eigner.c| | | om> | | | | | | 14.06.2002 | | | 11:36 | | | | |--------+-----------------------> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: "'ebxml org'" <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>, ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org | | cc: | | Subject: [ebxml-dev] WS vs ebXML poll | >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Webservices.org is running a poll about ebXML vs WS. Cast you opinion. http://www.webservices.org/index.php/poll/result/27 Jean-Jacques >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:Jean-Jacques.Dubray@eigner.com] >>Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 6:27 AM >>To: 'Frank. Christopher'; 'ebxml org'; ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org >>Subject: [ebxml-dev] WSCI SUN, BEA vs IBM and .NET >> >>I as explained (www.ebpml.org/wsci.htm) I would not hold my breath on >>YAS (yet another spec) for web services choreography. It is embarrassing >>enough that these guys have now 4 specs to deal with while ebXML has >>only one. >> >>It is clear to me that this spec is a faint attempt to regain traction >>while IBM and MS are cruising the web services space. >> >>Ultimately, the W3C does not even have the beginning of a plan to >>standardize the choreography of web services ! >> >>Cheers, >> >>Jean-Jacques Dubray____________________ >>Chief Architect >>Eigner Precision Lifecycle Management >>200 Fifth Avenue >>Waltham, MA 02451 >>781-472-6317 >>jjd@eigner.com >>www.eigner.com >> >> >> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Frank. Christopher [mailto:C.Frank@seeburger.de] >>>>Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 5:55 AM >>>>To: ebxml org; ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org >>>>Subject: AW: [ebxml-dev] New WSCI spec competes with BPSS.... NOT >>(very >>>>long) >>>> >>>>Hello, >>>> >>>>I am stunned. There really is a spec which competes with BPSS? How >>dare >>>>they? >>>> >>>>Reading this thread, I get the impression, that actually Ford never >>>>build a new car as long as Volkswagen has not sold ALL of the cars of >>>>their last new series. >>>> >>>>I just finished reading the thread with Jean-Jacques comments (well, >>>>most of them;-) and had a look at the WSCI spec myself. I am not even >>>>close that deep into the BP(M) than Jean-Jacques is. But I just >>thought: >>>>yepp, this (WSCI) is another SUV vehicle which has four tires (maybe 3 >>>>and a half) but is confusing pedals for brakes and acceleration which >>>>will make driving a bit complicated. (By the way: Thanks a lot >>>>Jean-Jaques for doing the analysis.) >>>> >>>>We, the software "producer" (and I include Sun, MS and IBM) are in >>>>competition (as Ford competes with Volkswagen) with each other, and we >>>>are not playing the game because of the game, but because of the >>money. >>>>Great, if we can overcome this and generate together something clever >>>>like ebXML. But this does not necessarily mean that we do this and >>only >>>>this. If we cannot put ebXML to market until others (or you or me;-) >>>>generate something "newer" (and "better" is unfortunately secondary), >>>>ebXMl has, for whatever reason, to notice Darwins rule. >>>>(And the very same does apply for WSCI.;-) >>>> >>>>If WSCI or any other "standard" or "trial" is overuling BPSS I would >>cry >>>>bitter tears (like most of the readers of this list I guess) >>especially >>>>if it would be overruled by something which is less good (remember >>CORBA >>>>and COM), because I could put all my clever thoughts and already done >>>>implementation to trash, but this is the world we live in. Being the >>>>best thing to solve the issue, consists of so much more influences >>then >>>>only the plain (cool) technology (from the deepest bottom of my heart: >>>>unfortunately consist of so much more than technology). >>>> >>>>Best Regards >>>>Christopher >>>>(SEEBURGER AG, Senior Developer/Research) >>>> >>>> >>>>(Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.";-) >>>> >>>> >>>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>>Von: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:jjd@eigner.com] >>>>Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Juni 2002 07:09 >>>>An: andrzej@chaeron.com >>>>Cc: 'Assaf Arkin'; 'Stefano POGLIANI'; 'ebxml org'; >>>>ebtwg-bps@lists.ebtwg.org; 'Christopher Ferris' >>>>Betreff: RE: [ebxml-dev] New WSCI spec competes with BPSS.... NOT >>(very >>>>long) >>>> >>>> >>>>Andrzej: >>>> >>>>Thank you very much for pointing this specification to us. >>>>____________________________________________________________________ __ >>__ >>>>____ >>>>Summary >>>> >>>>After much blabla and sarcasm I analyze the WSCI spec. Aside from the >>>>fact that this spec is a shameless cut and paste from BPML 0.4, as >>usual >>>>- and it is now a constant amongst "web services spec writers"- they >>>>treat B2B as an extension of app-to-app integration (with is not the >>>>same as EAI). >>>> >>>>The key semantic of EAI is publish/subscribe. This has been >>established >>>>for at least a decade with the developments of MOM and yet, the >>authors >>>>of WSCI try to brainwash us saying that point-to-point integration is >>>>better. You should tell Ford or Boeing about that. >>>> >>>>No guys, Collaboration are mostly a B2B concept (see below), and >>>>therefore should have B2B semantics such as non-repudiation, legally >>>>binding, confidentiality, security, tamperproof,... I talk with real >>>>customers every day which need these semantics. I even talked to a >>>>customer today that was pleasantly surprise to hear about Core >>>>Components. He told me this is exactly what he needed as their data >>>>model varies a bit and ofteb with the business partners. I was stunned >>! >>>>These semantics would not be too hard to add to WSCI, but you guys >>lack >>>>the understanding of what B2B is about, it is NOT app-to-app >>integration >>>>over the internet. Where have you been in the last 4 years? >>>> >>>>Far from "killing" ebXML this specification represents the missing >>link >>>>that would allow us to link ebXML with business process definitions. >>>> >>>>I actually feel sorry that someone would like to "kill" another spec. >>>>However, this is good when people use this kind of words, it brings a >>>>lot of suspicion and often signals something without substance. >>>>____________________________________________________________________ __ >>__ >>>>____ >>>>Disclaimer: all the thoughts expressed here only represent my opinion >>>>and not the one of my company. Some of the comments are for the >>purpose >>>>of entertainment, given as jokes -french humor- others are an >>objective >>>>analysis of WSCI/BPSS for the education of the interested reader. >>>> >>>>I am sure that some of my comments are plain wrong, out of ignorance >>or >>>>sarcasm. >>>> >>>>I apologize in advance if my comments hurt the sensitivity of the >>>>reader. It must be this hot summer night in wonderful Grotzingen >>germany >>>>that got me started. Ah... unless it is the mirabelle. >>>>____________________________________________________________________ __ >>__ >>>>____ >>>> >>>>This is always fun to see a new Specification from Intalio (since this >>>>is so much based on BPML 0.4, I assume Intalio is the main driver). >>>>However, it would be nice if they could finish the other specs before >>>>they start new ones, BPML comes to mind. I guess they must be looking >>>>for more funding yet again. We live an extraordinary time, people >>write >>>>a few paragraphs, add a few ppt figures (you should see BPML 0.1 to >>>>understand what I am talking about), don't forget to fetch a few names >>>>from industry giants, add the smell of "killing" something and boom, >>>>millions of dollars fall from the sky to do more of that, without any >>>>control: does it makes sense? do this guy knows what he is talking >>>>about? If you succeed with the first round, you can even attempt the >>>>second round -the sky is the limit- by changing a little bit your >>>>paragraphs, changing the title, bandwagon the latest hottest idea on >>the >>>>market, an boom, jackpot again. The odds are far better than the >>lotto. >>>>I must be in the wrong business. >>>> >>>>It is also fun so to see that Intalio finally gets it. Even though I >>>>have a lot of respect for people like Assaf, it would have been only >>two >>>>years next September that I joined BPMI and try to convince him that >>>>"Collaboration" was a key artifact of the Business Process Definition >>>>metamodel, namely, a Business Process is for the most part a series of >>>>collaborations mediated by the Business Process Engine. This is >>>>represented on figure 1-1 of the WSCI spec. I have shown that kind to >>>>picture in BPMI many times, with all but contempt. In particular this >>is >>>>what makes the "technical binding" of the operations far easier. The >>>>funny part is that BPML was designed without any alignment with B2B >>>>semantics (as of v0.4) while 90% of the processes that will be defined >>>>with BPML involve B2B interactions! I think that Intalio must not sell >>>>many products so they have not yet integrated notions like orders, >>>>invoices, customer support, negotiation, commitment, fulfillment... >>They >>>>probably do a lot of internal stuff at this point. >>>> >>>>I commented many times about the "Marketing world" in which we live so >>>>let me comment now on the new ebXML "killer" on the block. As volume, >>>>bass or treble is not an option to carry out your message, the only >>>>thing left is "word inflation". As usual I will try to be as objective >>>>as I can, Assaf is a really smart guy and more than often produces >>>>excellent work: Castor, Tyrex, BPML, I guess WSCI is the exception. >>>> >>>>So let's start dissecting this new killer. The introduction tells us: >>>>"WSCI provides an important foundation for ... application-application >>>>collaboration." Ah..Ah... so they are doing this as an alternative to >>>>EAI.. uhm where is B2B here? .. Ah yes they talk about it later ... >>>>"These business processes may reside entirely within the confines of a >>>>single company, or span across multiple organizations or companies." >>Yes >>>>this is a constant amongst web services people: lump sum EAI and B2B. >>>>B2B is just application-to-application integration beyond the >>firewall, >>>>so what's the big deal about B2B? Well, you should try to convince >>Ford >>>>which has 2500 enterprise systems world-wide, or Boeing which has a >>mere >>>>84 procurement systems that it has to do application-to-application >>>>integration over the internet with its tens of thousands of suppliers. >>I >>>>guess Intalio could not be further from the reality. I am surprised >>that >>>>BEA and SUN could associate their name with this kind of approach. I >>>>would assume, that this is not really SUN or BEA talking just the >>>>individuals eager to paste their names on this kind of sheet (not >>shit). >>>>However both BEA and SUN don't have much to offer in terms of web >>>>services. BEA has just released a new "IDE for web services" KaKa, >>Kajun >>>>or something like that but to web service enable what? A few session >>>>beans? SUN is in complete disarray desperately trying to catch up with >>>>.NET and IBM by controlling all the possible web services >>>>specifications. They lost the Java, J2EE, EAI/B2B (Forte) battles with >>>>abysmal market share, to the point that they are now giving away >>iPlanet >>>>-free, who wants to bet that they will dominate the web services >>battle? >>>>No the guys that get it are the webMethods, Sybase, IONA's of the >>world. >>>>Their approach is based on understanding the value and positioning of >>>>Web Services. In particular they are a complementary paradigm to EAI, >>to >>>>that effect, WebMethods provides the best approach I have seen so far >>in >>>>the industry, and they don't need to "kill" to sell it (see my summary >>>>on www.ebpml.org/showcase.htm). Yes some of the web service spec and >>>>infrastructure can be reused for B2B but you need the "business >>>>semantics" that WebServices keep lacking. ebXML IS business level web >>>>services, that sits on top of RPC level web services. So let's dive >>into >>>>this point, boy this is fun. >>>> >>>>First, the acute reader would have noticed that the WSCI bears a >>strong >>>>resemblance with BPML 0.4., the transaction model, the correlation >>>>model, the choreography model are all direct copy and peste from BPML >>>>0.4. >>>> >>>>In the overview section of the spec, here we go again: >>"...interactions >>>>between services - either in a business context or not" that statement >>>>suggest to me that they have no Business semantics, I guess that's a >>>>good way to kill ebXML but let's verify that. And they cannot >>emphasize >>>>this point enough (Thank you guys): "WSCI does not assume that Web >>>>Services are from different companies, as in business-to-business; it >>>>can be used equally well to describe interfaces of components that >>>>represent internal organizational units or other applications within >>the >>>>enterprise." The problem is that in traditional EAI the business >>>>semantics are an unnecessary burden, while no business semantics makes >>>>the spec unusable in B2B scenarios. This is very layering seems to be >>>>the right thing to do. >>>> >>>>The key semantic of EAI is publish/subscribe. This has been >>established >>>>for at least a decade with the developments of MOM and yet, the >>authors >>>>of WSCI try to brainwash us saying that key app-to-app semantics are: >>>>"Most Web Services, however Participate in longer conversations, >>>>spanning beyond the boundaries of a single operation. In these >>>>conversations, the ability to perform certain operations depends upon >>>>the previous exchange of messages as well as the way to interpret the >>>>content of each message may be influenced by the previous exchange." >>No >>>>I am sorry, there are very few scenarios in EAI that can be supported >>by >>>>this kind of approach. You are back to point-to-point, wake up guys ! >>I >>>>am actually surprised of this approach as Assaf had found a very >>>>interesting concept in BPML (Consume and Produce). However, the spec >>>>breaks the concept with the global model, it is no longer a pub/sub >>>>semantic but rather a binding semantic. Another "detail", I did not >>find >>>>in the spec the notion of "transformation" though it is a key feature >>of >>>>EAI system an necessary for loose coupling integrating,... oh yes, >>this >>>>is the new an improved point-to-point integration model where all >>>>application share the same semantics. >>>> >>>>You don't get it, do you? Collaborations are mostly a B2B thing. Yes >>you >>>>can model some API interaction in point-to-point manner. But, you >>don't >>>>publish your orders, you send them to your suppliers ! The problem >>again >>>>is that WSCI does not support any business semantics, not even >>pub/sub. >>>>Who are you going to convince to use WSCI? Can't use it for B2B, can't >>>>use it for EAI. >>>> >>>>Let's analyze the different aspects of the spec: >>>> >>>>First, to be clear, all these concepts are directly repurposed from >>BPML >>>>0.4. Even the concept of Human Agent is coming from there. I must >>admit >>>>that I can't wait to see what BPML 1.0 will look like. Maybe a cut and >>>>peste from WSCI? >>>> >>>>I like the distinction between WSDL (Static interface definition) as >>>>opposed to WSCI (dynamic behavior of the static definition). This >>>>approach gives you an automatic binding between the collaboration >>>>definition and the technical parameters of the web service. >>>> >>>>"Business processes are increasingly relying upon collaboration", boy >>>>why didn't I think of that before, I guess Assaf, you are finally >>>>getting it. Just change increasingly by "almost exclusively" and you >>are >>>>there. >>>> >>>>"WSCI is not a "workflow description language"": strange, because all >>>>the semantics are coming from BPML 0.4. >>>> >>>>1) Message choreography >>>>"The Action, is the basic construct of WSCI, and it is bound to some >>>>WSDL operation. WSCI specifies how multiple actions are choreographed >>in >>>>a simple sequence." >>>> >>>>An action is actually not a concept really different from operation >>>>here, it is just a bag to add properties to an operation like >>>>correlation and role performing that operation. It is not really an >>>>action in the sense of event condition action, or WfMC actions, the >>>>concept does not relate to "state" or "activity". Actually the best >>>>proof of this is that they stop talking about Action and then talk >>about >>>>"WSCI describes the behavior of a Web service in terms of >>choreographed >>>>activities." and "The most common atomic activity is action." This is >>a >>>>poor choice of word as activity and action have precise semantics in >>>>this context. Also, I sense a design flaw here, do you support the >>>>concept of using an action definition more than once within the >>>>choreography (not part of a loop). BPSS supports the notion of a usage >>>>of a business transaction(~action), this is called >>>>BusinessTransactionActivity which means that the same BT definition >>can >>>>be reused any number of time. This is a must, this is a very useful >>>>concept. I don't think you have the same thing. Do you? >>>> >>>>We can see directly from the example that WSCI is "asymmetric" in >>other >>>>words, it is designed from the perspective of one side of the >>>>collaboration. So that works well here because the user manages the >>>>collaboration in his head. In a real scenario you need to map the >>>>actions of one side to the one of the other. Microsoft has struggled >>a >>>>lot with this asymmetry in XLang, WSFL came out with a more elegant >>>>approach and the concept of global model. I actually can't believe my >>>>eyes, after BPML being a plagiary of XLang (though better), they now >>>>shamelessly "borrow" from WSFL, with the same concept of Global >>models. >>>>These guys are the champion of cut and peste. As usual, they don't >>>>reference their sources. Your reference list is hilarious. W3C that, >>W3C >>>>this. How impressive, you guys must be smart to read all these >>>>specifications. See, the worst thing that the web has brought to us is >>>>un-refereed publications. Anybody can publish anything and get away >>with >>>>it! >>>> >>>>In comparison, ebXML is designed in a totally symmetric manner, such >>>>that the business service interfaces of each partner can be configured >>>>from the same collaboration definition. I think that this is a >>>>fundamental flaw of the web services concept when use in collaborative >>>>applications (not in Stock quotes), because you deal with twice as >>much >>>>xml, plus you need to glue the pieces together. With that respect >>ebXML >>>>BPSS is far more elegant and efficient. >>>> >>>>The control flow is a "block-structured" control flow and is specified >>>>with the semantics: >>>>Complex processes >>>>Sequential execution >>>>Parallel execution >>>>Looping >>>>Conditional execution >>>> >>>>I guess you would have guess by now ... guys this is sick, this is a >>>>shameless cut and peste of BPML 0.4. Unfortunately, I think that block >>>>structured control flow is not the most appropriate choreography model >>>>here. You have definitely negotiation pattern that would be hard to >>>>model with a block structured approach. >>>> >>>>Also could you explain me something? Just like ebXML you specify the >>>>choreography of a collaboration, why is it within a <process> element? >>>>Would <collaboration> be more appropriate. It can't be that you read >>>>BPSS too many times, since you have no idea about BPSS semantics. >>>> >>>> >>>>2) Transaction boundaries and compensation >>>>In BPSS, we did not find the notion of Roll-back appropriate. So yes >>>>WSCI describes also compensating transaction, which is more the way a >>>>business operates (roll-back is more app-to-app kind of thing). BPSS >>>>does not have that, but we did not find it a hurdle to model real >>world >>>>collaboration, as they can be modeled anyways, the only difference is >>>>that these business transactions are not tagged as compensating >>>>transactions. >>>> >>>>3) Exception handling >>>>The exception behavior is yet a copy/peste from BPML. ebXML BPSS is >>able >>>>to identity exceptions (technical or business) but let the designer of >>>>the collaboration specify the course of action. It looks more >>>>appropriate to use the WSCI approach (as a java programmer), however, >>>>from a practical perspective, I don't think you gain much there. There >>>>is a key semantic that is missing in WSCI, which I think cannot be >>>>added: BPSS:acceptanceAcknowledgement which signals that a message was >>>>correctly processed by the receiving application. In B2B this is >>>>essential to synchronize the state of two companies. In our world, >>PLM, >>>>people exchange large CAD files (we have customer which ships a whole >>>>car !). As part of the exchange, you really want to know not only that >>>>your message got there (Via a web service), but that it correctly >>loaded >>>>in the receiving application whether it is a CAD system, or even if it >>>>is reviewed by a user !! >>>> >>>>4) Thread management >>>>WSCI (like BPML) also uses the concept of "correlation" to identify >>the >>>>collaboration instance of a given message. I personally dislike this >>>>approach and rather carry a cookie around to maintain context. I think >>>>this is more a matter or preference. I feel that the cookie is cleaner >>>>and more general. You don't get stock if the correlation is ambiguous >>or >>>>need to span several elements of a document. The major advantage of >>WSCI >>>>approach is in multiparty collaboration as show in their example. But >>I >>>>don't think they fully solve the multiparty collaboration problem just >>>>yet. BPSS does not either. >>>> >>>>5) Properties and Selectors >>>>The property concept is good, as it decouples the choreography >>>>specification from the document formats of the message exchange. BPSS >>>>should use that concept. >>>> >>>>6) Connectors >>>>Did not find much about this >>>>7) Operational context >>>>Did not find much about this >>>>8) Dynamic participation >>>>Did not find much about this >>>> >>>>So in conclusion, I think they fall short of understanding the B2B >>>>semantics that ebXML implements. I cannot find a customer that told >>me, >>>>no "I don't need the business semantics provided by ebXML (BPSS in >>>>particular), I can live with XLang or WSFL, and now the new and >>>>turbo-charged WSCI". (Va-va-voom) >>>> >>>>However, you do provide the missing piece for linking ebXML to >>Business >>>>Process Management Systems, which I was trying to introduce when I was >>>>working at BPMI. As I explained in chapter 6 of the book, Professional >>>>ebXML foundation, you need to wrap the ebXML business service >>interface >>>>into web services in order to let your enterprise systems use the >>>>B2b/Ebxml infrastructure. WSCi represent the missing link which allow >>me >>>>to strip the business semantics (once you are within your four walls, >>>>you don't need it anymore) and enable a business process management >>>>system to take over and control the b2b collaboration message exchange >>>>with the appropriate interactions of your enterprise systems. >>>> >>>>Good work, could do better though. So how long did it take you to >>write >>>>it? A couple weeks? Maybe a week for the art work? Congratulations on >>>>the coloring scheme, I am sure the VCs will be impressed. >>>> >>>>Cheers ! >>>> >>>> >>>>Jean-Jacques Dubray____________________ >>>>Chief Architect >>>>Eigner Precision Lifecycle Management >>>>200 Fifth Avenue >>>>Waltham, MA 02451 >>>>781-472-6317 >>>>jjd@eigner.com >>>>www.eigner.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>From: Andrzej Jan Taramina [mailto:andrzej@chaeron.com] >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 11:18 AM >>>>>>To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org >>>>>>Subject: [ebxml-dev] New WSCI spec competes with BPSS.... >>>>>> >>>>>>The new Web Service Choreography Interface spec has been developed >>and >>>>>>released by a consortium including Sun, BEA, Intalio, and SAP. >>>>>> >>>>>>The spec can be found here: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://titan.intalio.com:8080/intalio/wsci/ >>>>>> >>>>>>According to a contact at Intalio (prime movers behind BPMI), and I >>>>quote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Think of wsci as an ebxml killer and the public interface to any >>>>>>process, >>>>>>> making it reusable and exposing it where needed since that process >>>>is a >>>>>>> private implementation (BPML) >>>>>> >>>>>>Basically, it looks like WSCI is intended to supplant BPSS. This is >>a >>>>bit >>>>>>strange, >>>>>>given Sun's participation and support of ebXML initiatives. WSCI >>>>would be >>>>>>used to >>>>>>specify public processes, whereas BPML would be used to specify >>>>private >>>>>>(internal) >>>>>>processes. >>>>>> >>>>>>It distresses me that the whole world of XML-dialect standards seems >>>>to be >>>>>>splintering as soon as you try to get anywhere beyond the basic >>specs >>>>>>(XML, SOAP, >>>>>>WSDL, UDDI) that the vendors have all agreed to. Seems that vendors >>>>are >>>>>>still >>>>>>playing their usual games vying for proprietary lock-in higher up in >>>>the >>>>>>protocol >>>>>>stacks. >>>>>> >>>>>>It behooves the users/customers to loudly complain and demand >>>>standards- >>>>>>based, >>>>>>interoperable solutions. We've had a taste of the benefits that >>such >>>>an >>>>>>approach >>>>>>brings to the table....let's keep pounding the vendors till they >>>>deliver >>>>>>on such >>>>>>promises higher in the stack as well. This also leads me to believe >>>>that >>>>>>there might >>>>>>be market share gain opportunities available to software vendors >>that >>>>take >>>>>>the high >>>>>>road of global standards compliance (New Era/Sybase come to mind >>>>here). >>>>>> >>>>>>I'ld be interested in hearing from Sun people that hang on this list >>>>as to >>>>>>what their >>>>>>intent is regarding ebXML standards (like BPSS) versus this new WSCI >>>>>>proposal. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>...Andrzej >>>>>> >>>>>>Chaeron Corporation >>>>>>http://www.chaeron.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS. >>>>>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >>>>>>manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS. >>>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >>>>manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl> >>>> >>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS. >>>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >>>>manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl> >> >> >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS. >>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >>manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl> ---------------------------------------------------------------- The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS. To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC