Re: W3C Web Service Architecture omits BPSS

Bob,

[I stripped off the other aliases because I cannot
post to them. Please forward as you see fit.]

I'm glad to see that someone is reading our work:)

If you have comments on the draft, or specific usage
scenarios you would like to have captured in our
work, you and anyone else are free to post directly
to our technical discussion list (www-ws-arch@w3.org).

All of the WGs in the W3C Web Services Activity are chartered[2] to
conduct their work in the public eye and we welcome comments
from the public in our technical discussions.

The Usage Scenarios draft document you cite is an editor's
draft. In fact, the *first* editor's draft that will form
the basis of our development of usage scenarios for Web
Services. It is not intended to be considered complete
as such and it does not yet reflect consensus of the WG
because it has only just been made available to them
for consideration.

However, I have also copied this email to our public comments
mail list so that this issue is tracked in accordance with
our formal issues process[1].

Cheers,

Chris
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/04/wd-wsa-issues-process-20020426
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/01/ws-arch-charter


bhaugen wrote:

> ebXML BPSS is incorrectly omitted from the just-published Draft 
> "Web Services Architecture Usage Scenarios"
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/wd-wsawg-scenarios-05012002.html
> 
> See "2.14 S040 Conversational message exchange"
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/wd-wsawg-scenarios-05012002.html#S040
> 
> <excerpt>
> 2.14.3.3 Candidate Technologies
> Sequencing aka choreography: WSCL, WSFL, XLang
> 
> Conversations: ebXML Message Service
> 
> Static characteristics: ebXML CPP/CPA, WSEL?
> </excerpt>
> 
> While ebXML Message Service and CPP/CPA are cited
> as Candidate Technologies, BPSS is not.
> The authors do cite two proprietary technologies
> for "Sequencing aka choreography", WSFL and XLang,
> but omit the only real standard-candidate, ebXML BPSS.
> It cannot be because they do not know ebXML exists.
> 
> Likewise in section 2.21 S080 Transaction
> they do not list any requirements, but do
> include: 2.21.3.3 Candidate Technologies
> OASIS BTP
> 
> Once again, ebXML BPSS not only has a 
> transaction protocol, but also a clear definition
> of what transactions mean in a B2B context:
> not database transactions, but state-alignment.
> 
> So we could help them with requirements as
> well as a candidate technology.
> 
> There are probably other places where ebXML
> can provide both requirements and technologies,
> but the above are two that leaped out at me.
> 
> I am copying Chris Ferris, the chair of the W3C
> WS Architecture committee, to request that he
> forward this message to the authors of the
> draft document.
> 
> -Bob Haugen
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 08:10:47 UTC