W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Business Preotocol (was: Application Protocol Definition)

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:39:07 -0800
To: "bhaugen" <linkage@interaccess.com>, "James M Snell" <jasnell@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <IGEJLEPAJBPHKACOOKHNGEFODEAA.arkin@intalio.com>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of bhaugen
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 2:33 PM
> To: James M Snell
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Business Preotocol (was: Application Protocol Definition)
>
>
>
> James M Snell wrote:
> > The term "business protocols" as I've been using it would encompass
> the
> > broad family of technology-independent business protocols available.
> > RosettaNet PIP 3A4, ebXML BPSS would all fall under this category so
> we're
> > not usurping anything.
>
> Sorry about the word "usurp", sounded like an accusation.
> If you use the same word
> for the technology-independent business protocol
> and also the technical implementations,
> won't that be confusing?
>

How about two different names for the two. Some suggestions in no particular
order:

service protocol and business protocol
business protocol and trading partner protocol
service protocol and collaboration protocol
business and meta
business and pattern

???
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 17:40:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:15 GMT