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

Re: XML protocol comparison

From: ftolman <f.tolman@ct.tudelft.nl>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 08:21:37 +0100
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-Id: <01bfbb19$8b215fe0$9b0ba182@cti005.CiTG.TUDelft.NL>

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
To: Bernhard Dorninger <bernhard.dorninger@scch.at>
Cc: XML DistApp ML <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: XML protocol comparison


>On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 03:51:24PM +0200, Bernhard Dorninger wrote:
>> I would add XMI and Wf-XML to the Domain specific section, too. I know
that
>> they can represent  arbitrary data, but the protocols have been designed
for
>> a specific field of applications:
>> wf-XML for providing interoperability between simple chained workflows
and
>> nested workflows.
>> XMI for metadata exchange between development tools to allow distributed
>> application development.
>> Of course, the two can be used for other purposes, but I suppose that is
not
>> intended.
>>
>> Concerning Jabber, I think it is domain specific, too. To me it seems
like
>> an XMLish ICQ messaging architecture. But I haven't read the docs, so
>> forgive me if i'm wrong.
>>
>> And, again.... :)
>> BizTalk and ebXML (and eCo) do IMO not belong in this comparison matrix.
>> They would fit in a category called "XML-based E-business
infrastructures"
>>
>> btw, there are new documents available concerning BXXP.
>> http://mappa.mundi.net/Internet-Drafts/
>
>Since this involves some pretty weighty changes to the protocol
>matrix, I'd like to hear from some others before going ahead. Do we
>have seconds on Bernhard's characterization of XMI, Wf-XML, Jabber,
>BizTalk ebXML, and eCo?


I've been looking at ebXML for some days and think see that its scope is
much much wider than that of XMI and such. BizTalk is too much an
XML-wrapper only. If it becomes interesting you end up with embedded VB.
Portable like lead.



>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
[mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
>> > Behalf Of Eric Prud'hommeaux
>> > Sent: Dienstag, 09. Mai 2000 22:21
>> > To: Daniel Koger
>> > Cc: Bernhard Dorninger; XML DistApp ML
>> > Subject: Re: XML protocol comparison
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 11:03:43AM -0700, Daniel Koger wrote:
>> > > This is Daniel Koger from the ICE Authoring Group.  Does
>> > app-specific imply
>> > > association with a single given application, or a set of applications
>> > > targeting a segment of exchange?
>> >
>> > the latter. perhaps the new wording is clearer:
>> >
>> > domain-specific XML protocols: protocols with a fixed grammer
>> > targeting a particular application domain.
>> >
>> > > Reason for the question:
>> > >
>> > > We have had a perspective that ICE is associated with a single
>> > company.  My
>> > > team uses ICE from two different vendors and some in-house
>> > prototyping that
>> > > is application independent.  All of the work is, however, targeting
>> > > syndication applications for interchange between application
frameworks.
>> >
>> > I wonder if ICE is ever used for XML protocols outside of content
>> > syndication. It can be, but then all messaging formats cam be. ICE has
>> > a well thought out transaction scenario that provides reliable message
>> > transport. This technology is interesting in the xml-protocol domain
>> > and it may be interesting to adapt the ICE states and messages to work
>> > over SOAP or LOTP.
>
>--
>-eric
>
>(eric@w3.org)
>
>
Received on Thursday, 11 May 2000 02:29:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:56 GMT