[ebxml-dev] WSCI analysis revised and Augmented

[Jean-Jacques Dubray <jjd@eigner.com>]

After talking with a couple authors of the WSCI spec I felt if was not
fair play to leave my sarcasms and frustration in the spec analysis. So
they are gone. I think in the future if would be nice if communication
is done in a timely manner specially when there is overlap in the
authorship of the specification and when rumors are floating around. I
cannot emphasize enough the value of the open process by which ebXML is
designed. Everybody knows what is going on, can bring some comments,
point out deficiencies. When intermediary specifications are developed
like WSCL, WSFL or WSCI, a lot of energy is wasted. Of course when specs
are larger, with more participants and based on and RFP like at the OMG,
I value this kind of process as well. 

I have added my views of the complementarities between WSCI and BPSS
www.ebpml.org/wsci.htm#bpss

Over the week-end I will review the complete example in more detail and
deliver a final analysis.

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: 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>