W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2000

RE: SOAP and ebXML

From: Satish Thatte <satisht@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:33:33 -0800
Message-ID: <EC67B042372C27429014D4FB06AC9FAF2D7387@red-msg-29.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "'Krishna Sankar'" <ksankar@cisco.com>, john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com, Satish Thatte <satisht@microsoft.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org

I think we are agreeing.  ebXP = ebXML(TRP) is exactly what I would like to 
see happen.  I quite agree with you that 'Stuff like "Mission-critical", 
"simpler" etc are in the eyes of the beholder and not engineering terms.'
That was the point I was trying to make in my original mail.


-----Original Message-----
From: Krishna Sankar [mailto:ksankar@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 10:08 AM
To: john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com; Satish Thatte
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: RE: SOAP and ebXML

John et al,

	Good observations and I agree with John to find synergies (politics
market competition aside ;-)).

	Actually, it might be better this way - ebXML as a
and XP as a standard. As XP is extensible, nothing stops us from
implementing the ebXML TRP over XP. And we can use the rest of the ebXML
stack (BP/CC, RegRep et al). I think the XP deliverable and the Phase II of
ebXML might coincide and there is a chance for synergy. James was talking
about ebXP and mathematically speaking, ebXP = ebXML(TRP) !

	1.	To answer Satish's point on ordered delivery capability, I
think it is
in ebXML Phase 1, under the reliable messaging category. I agree that ebXML
does not require extensibility of header, namespaces et al. But as Brian
pointed out, ebXML is a lot more than a messaging layer and that is where we
can leverage ebXML.

	2.	Of course, SOAP has the RPC style functionalities, which I
do not think
ebXML has.

	3.	At a philosophical level, I think XP (being the newer
initiative) we
have a chance to learn from the other initiatives, find synergy and improve.

	4.	Stuff like "Mission-critical", "simpler" etc are in the eyes
of the
beholder and not engineering terms ;-) So I do not think we can characterize
any standard in those terms.


-----Original Message-----
From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 4:08 AM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: RE: SOAP and ebXML

Let me try and put another slant on this discussion and cover a number of
postings in one.

The ebXML initiative started 12 months ago and ends in May 2001. At that
time there were a number of existing open standards for message structures
and we did a review of them to identify what should be the structure from a
header and enveloping position. The SOAP 1.0 spec was around at that time
but it wasn't until later on that the 1.1 spec appeared which started to
provide a possible open standard. We did the review of the existing
standads around January this year and we did include the then current
Biztalk draft. As a result of a requirements gathering and "due diligence"
the ebXML TRP group developed the specification which has now been made
public. In the interim, the SOAP 1.1 spec appeared, the W3C set up this
activity and the WG started to meet.

Due to the time constraints, the ebXML TRP group continued to develop and
publish its specifications. One of the important points about ebXML is that
it was not set up as a standards body such as the W3C or ISO. It has always
been the intention that any technology proposed from ebXML would be passed
to another body for standards ratification. This is now happening with the
XP WG and Dick Brooks is the appointed ebXML liaison member of XP. There
are a number of other people who have been part of ebXML on XP but we are
first and foremost representatives of our individual companies and

During the Raleigh F2F, the ebXML TRP requirements were included in the
draft requirements we've been discussing. More recently, Dick has posted
the use cases we've discussed inside ebXML TRP to the list for inclusion in
the XP process. This is to ensure that whatever XP comes up with as a final
specification meets the requirements and use cases that shaped the ebXML
TRP spec.

My own perception is that there is a spectrum of complexity from the Simple
cases supported by SOAP to the complex EDI like interchanges envisaged by
the ebXML community. Providing the XP WG produces a specification which is
simple and yet extensible we will be able to support both ends of the
spectrum and all points in between. This is reflected in the current XP
requirements document.

The technical community involved in both camps believe that convergence via
XP is a no-brainer. Let's make that happen, then any political posturing
will be just that.


XML Technology and Messaging,
IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park,
Winchester, SO21 2JN

Tel: (work) +44 (0)1962 815188        (home) +44 (0)1722 781271
Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898
Notes Id: John Ibbotson/UK/IBM
email: john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com
Received on Friday, 8 December 2000 14:05:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:11 UTC