Re: State Alignment and Standard Signals

Monica Martin wrote:
> I am not certain that the message exchange achieves 
> 'real state alignment'

I agree.  

Do people disagree with Tony and my message that six other
specifications are already competing to try to define this area?  (Maybe
it was too long?)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2004Jul/0017.html

Seven if you count ebXML BPSS/OASIS ebpp/RosettaNet/UNCEFACT BCF as one?
Or nine or ten if you consider that all of those specs, derived from
RosettaNet, have forked subtly since their derivation?

Do you really want to work on yet another business state alignment
protocol?

Received on Thursday, 15 July 2004 14:26:25 UTC