> However, since then I don't see the term GXA used much anymore, if at all. I >lso kee well the primary reason u dont see 'GXA' anywhere is because its not an official name On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:51:05 -0400, Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> wrote: > > > "Monica J. Martin" wrote: > > > > Jean-Jacques Dubray wrote: > > > > >Did you mean GSA or GXA? How do we know that any given stack is > > >"complete", what is the criteria to leave something out? > > > > > >JJ- > > > > > > > > mm1: Joe, what is the GXA umbrella anyway? > > Ah, that's a good point Monica. At one time (about early to mid 2003), > there was a well-defined set of specifications that > Microsoft/IBM/BEA/others grouped under the term "GXA". However, since > then I don't see the term GXA used much anymore, if at all. I also keep > in mind that only one out of these approximately 20 specifications has > completed (or even entered, for that matter) an open standards process - > OASIS Web Services Security (originally WS-Security). > > > > Kind Regards, > Joe Chiusano > Booz | Allen | Hamilton > Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World > -- shodZ The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/>
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>