RE: XML protocol comparison

Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> 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
> > they can represent  arbitrary data, but the protocols have been designed
> > a specific field of applications:
> <snip/>
> 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?

   With regard to Wf-XML, I agreed with the original decision (and now to
Bernhard's suggestion) to place it into the domain-specific section. Now the
WfMC (Workflow Management Coalition) sees processes as processes, regardless
of their involvement with Workflow. This is why the spec contains language
like "generic enactment services", and tries to maintain the stance that it
can be applied to remote procedure (process) management in general. This may
well be the case, but our primary focus was certainly on workflow

   I believe most of the protocols in the matrix were initially designed
with a specific functional target (application domain) in mind. ICE was
designed for content syndication, Wf-XML for Workflow interoperability, XMI
for object metadata exchange, etc. However, they all require some type of
underlying distributed process management capability. That's what brings us
all here, right? That's also why I'm keeping an eye on this effort. If a
standard process management protocol emerges out of this that supports our
requirements, the coalition may be able to utilize it in a future version of
Wf-XML (enabling us to focus more on Workflow issues).

   BTW - the official 1.0 version of the Wf-XML spec is now out, and
available (in .pdf and .doc formats) at: I'm hoping to
work on an XML version of it as soon as my full-time responsibilities
lighten up a bit.

Michael A. Rossi
856-983-4400 x4911

Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2000 18:10:05 UTC