- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 20:58:53 -0500 (EST)
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3A3191C1.194C9030@east.sun.com>
I'd like to respond to a number of points that have been raised in this discussion [1], in my capacity as vice-lead of the ebXML TR&P project team. I feel that it is important that there be a clear understanding of the work we're doing in ebXML. The first point I'd like to address is the comment made by Satish Thatte [2] on the issue of protocol extensibility as being a key differentiator between SOAP and ebXML. ebXML TR&P has *always* had a requirement to address extensibility of the protocol. This is clearly articulated in our requirements and overview document (section 4.9 of [3]) published in May 2000. The TR&P team has been working to a phased delivery schedule in which we scoped our work efforts. The fact that the current draft of the specification (v0.8) [3] does not include an explicitly defined extension mechanism is merely an artifact of this delivery schedule, not a shortcoming of the protocol. Extensibility of the ebXML headers is currently being addressed by the TR&P team and will be formally added to the draft version of the v1.0 ebXML Message Service specification in the next couple of weeks. The second point I'd like to address is a comment in John Ibbotson's email [4] regarding disposition of the ebXML specifications w/r/t standards ratification. UN/CEFACT, one of the co-sponsors of ebXML, is one of only 4 organizations on the planet that can set de jure standards. It is my understanding that the ebXML specifications, upon completion, will likely be fast tracked through the UN/CEFACT process, establishing them as international, de jure standards. It is heartening to see that the ebXML TR&P requirements are being seriously considered by the XP WG. This will certainly help to further the likelihood that we might achieve convergence once the XP WG has delivered its specification as a W3C Recommendation. I am wondering whether Dick Brook's role as liaison between ebXML TR&P and the XP WG is being misinterpreted. My understanding of his role was to ensure that both efforts were working along tracks that at one stage might converge. In this regard, I think that Dick is serving both groups well in his capacity as liaison. The third point I'd like to comment on is the assertion that ebXML is somehow unsuitable for lightweight messaging as I believe has been suggested in a couple of the emails, because it is "only suitable for heavyweight, B2B messaging". While David Burdett has addressed this point in [5], I just wanted to be sure that his point is not missed. ebXML TR&P message protocol addresses different qualities of service, ranging from lightweight messaging (as with XP/SOAP) to business quality messaging (suitable for purchase order handling between companies) which incorporates security, reliability and other key features. Quality of service is a real engineering concept, not an abstract notion. QoS applies to all manner of services, whether they be characterized as lightweight or otherwise. One of the fundamental objectives of ebXML is to avail these very qualities of service to any use to which TR&P might be applied. Finally, ebXML is a big effort involving hundreds of participants across five continents, operating under international rules. TR&P is just one of the activities. A convergence solution should respect the prerogatives as well as the hard work of both organizations. Krishna Sankar's recent note [6] makes an exellent point. Those of us working on ebXML would gladly invite the members of the XP WG to review, provide feedback and/or contributions to our work. I believe that there is much which we can learn from eachother. Cheers, Chris [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0090.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0109.html [3] http://ebxml.org/project_teams/transport/transport.htm [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0112.html [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0105.html [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0128.html
Received on Sunday, 10 December 2000 15:29:06 UTC