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

RE: !-Re: ebXML Abandons SOAP

From: Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 12:30:50 -0500
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: <dick@8760.com>
Since it's inception in September, 1999 [1] ebXML's mission has remained
constant, "to develop a technical framework that will enable XML to be
utilized in a consistent manner for the exchange of all electronic business

In the fall of 1999, when ebXML began to investigate candidate technologies,
the version of SOAP that was available at the time, version 0.9 dated
September 1999 [2], indicated that SOAP was specifically targeting a
solution for XML-RPC, reference the following from the SOAP specification:
"SOAP defines an RPC mechanism using XML for client-server interaction
across a network by using the following mechanisms:
*	HTTP as the base transport
*	XML documents for encoding of invocation requests and responses".

It's clear from these two descriptions that ebXML and SOAP were attempting
to solve different problems. ebXML's specifications developed around the
need to support "the exchange of all electronic business data". This
required a design and technology that could reliably and securely transport
multiple formats, XML, X12, EDIFACT, and others. ebXML chose a MIME based
packaging approach and an XML based "header" to describe "meta-information"
to route, identify and describe a business exchange.

ebXML did not abandon SOAP; ebXML and SOAP have developed and evolved

[1] United Nations and OASIS Join Forces to Produce Global XML Framework for
Electronic Business
Boston, MA, USA & Geneva, Switzerland, September 15, 1999

[2] SOAP: Simple Object Access Protocol V0.9 dated September 1999

Dick Brooks (ebXML liaison to W3C/XP)
Group 8760
110 12th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Fax: 205-250-8057

InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Burdett, David
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 7:46 PM
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: !-Re: ebXML Abandons SOAP
> Talk about a thread with misleading headings !! Most of the emails on this
> thread have had nothing to do with ebXML !!!
> So just for the record I'll repeat from an earlier email ...
> ============
> "ebXML abandons SOAP" is a rumour. A more accurate description is as
> follows:
> 1. ebXML has not abandoned SOAP, but we haven't adopted it either - I
> personally, and other people in ebXML, see the W3C XP activity as a
> potential path of convergence between SOAP and ebXML
> 2. On MIME, we selected MIME rather than XML because, **right
> now** (notice
> the emphasis) it is the only **standard** (notice the emphasis
> again) way to
> digitally sign and encrypt documents, and
> 3. We wanted to have one way of encapsulating/wrapping/enveloping
> electronic
> data whether it was XML or not.
> Let's not pre-judge any outcomes of the XP work before the first
> XP meeting
> has even been held.
> ============
> Regards
> David
> PS If anyone sends any more emails on this topic ... PLEASE change the
> subject ;)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Cunnings [mailto:cunnings@lectrosonics.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 9:47 AM
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: !-Re: ebXML Abandons SOAP
> Kurt writes:
> <snip>
> On the other hand, if you go the other route, then you're forced into
> trying to move XML over HTTP, you run into the danger of a single
> proprietary solution dominating (aka SOAP or JAVX), and things get
> otherwise messy.
> </snip>
> But how about a single standard solution dominating?
> The only danger might be that we could interoperate!
> <snip>
> One possible solution might be to make use of processing instructions. You
> could essentially keep the whole structure within a formal XML document,
> since PIs don't have to be within the internal content, yet you still have
> something that can easily be parsed by an XML processor: ...
> </snip>
> The problem with PI's (I think) is that they aren't specifiable in any
> schema you
> may want to use...Aren't PI's outside the scope of XML Schema?
> RC
Received on Saturday, 7 October 2000 13:34:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:10 UTC