RE: [ebxml-dev] BPSS and WSCI

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

>>We believe that WSCI is more adequate in addressing the specific needs
of
>>the Web services stack, where one would focus on the WSDL operations
and
>>the
>>choreography of these operations, whereas BPSS addresses the needs of
B2B
>>collaborations and focuses on B2B transactions and trading agreements
>>between business partners.

<JJ> The fundamental achievement of BPSS is the state synchronization
between two (business) parties, whether this is part of a "commitment"
or a more casual message interchange. In any B2B message exchange (even
between a travel agent and an airline) this is mandatory. Imagine the
cost of getting periodically out of synch with your business partners?

On the choreography level (which is one aspect of the state
synchronization), BPSS provides a message centric view, while WSDL and
WSCI provide an API-centric view of the same thing. The questions are
then: what are the pros and cons to use one view versus another?  What
do we need to agree on, my API or our message interchange? Do you start
from your processes out? Or do you start from agreeing on the
(industry-wide) message interchanges and then you align your processes
to support them.
</JJ>


>>There is no one standard that can attempt to solve all problems,
rather a
>>combination of standards that could work together, each addressing a
>>specific problem area, and together offering customers an end-to-end
>>solution. We do not view the existence of any one standard as
preventing
>>or
>>otherwise hindering any tool vendor from supporting other standards.
>>
<JJ> How can you claim that "there is no one standard ...". Do you think
that this is truly a viable approach if every company and their
competitors claim that they have established a "Standard" which is part
of the web services stack? Especially when this standard is designed out
of the blue, without an RFP and clear requirements, not even a well
defined scope, let alone articulated as part of an overall architecture
or a stack. 

I cannot decide whether your justification to add "yet another piece of
work" is fallacious or ludicrous. 

Soon this poor WS stack will look like a Mikado and web services will go
from a useful concept that we could all use and that complements
existing approaches (ranging from CORBA to ebXML) to an un-usable soup
that does everything and nothing at the same time. Ah... unless that
could be the point?

Could you please use the words specification or recommendation rather
than standard. WSCI is yet to become a standard as measured by the rate
of adoption.
</JJ>
Ciao,

JJ-
Proud to be an ebXML contributor.



>>We are aware of concerns regarding specifications that are proprietary
and
>>vendor specific. Fundamental to our effort, all parties participating
in
>>the
>>development of the WSCI specification has agreed upfront to make the
>>specification available on a royalty free basis and allows all vendors
to
>>implement that specification.
>>
>>I would encourage you all to take a close look at the IPR statement
that
>>appears at the top of the WSCI specification, and also to consider the
>>other
>>work done by the vendors with relation to open, royalty-free
standards.
>>
>>regards,
>>arkin
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Assaf Arkin                                          arkin@intalio.com
>>Intalio Inc.                                           www.intalio.com
>>The Business Process Management Company                 (650) 577 4700
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>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>