W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > March 2002

D-AG0017 Revised

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:12:46 -0800
Message-ID: <3B286631A9CFD1118D0700805F6F9F5A09D09D25@hou281-msx1.chevron.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
D-AG0017 was criticized because it was too general.  OK, lets try:

... provides guidance for the development of the web services infrastructure
needed to implement in a standards-based environment common business
functions (e.g. request for quote, purchase order, sales order, invoice)
currently provided in proprietary contexts by EDI.

I personally think that is too specific.  Feel free to whittle it down.

The measurements of D-AG0017 success factors was criticized because they
were too specific.  That's a little tougher, because I thought it was good
for metrics to be specific.  However, let me try expressing something about
where that "laundry list", as someone called it, came from.  I strive to


Is there a frameword within the web services architecture that will support
at least an 80-20 of the functions currently offered by proprietary VAN's
(Value Added Networks) to support EDI functions?  In particular, will the
web services architecture support reliable messaging, routing and
intermediaries, unique ID and sequencing of messages and transaction

Comment:  I am unsure whether VAN's actually support transaction processing.
We don't use this very much in our industry because our ERP systems don't
tend to support two-phase commits.  When I posted this, however, I was
assured in responses that two-phase commits are heavy hitters in other
industries.  Whether they are explicitly supported by VAN's, as implied by
the above statement, is a mystery to me.
Received on Friday, 29 March 2002 09:12:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:55 UTC