From: Jean-Jacques Dubray
> I am now in favor of bringing some of
> the semantics of BPSS (not the protocol part) into BPML. Namely BPML
> must deal with Business Transaction as well as it deals with Web
> Services.
JJ, could you please explain what so mean by
"semantics but not protocol" and why you want
to continue to use BPML as your base?
Your opinion below appears to predict a short
life expectancy for BPML, if I understand
correctly.
Thanks,
Bob Haugen
> BPML is much more focused on Web Services rather than B2B, this is
> unfortunate - they are missing a huge opportunity. Web Services as
they
> stand today (and in light of the design of BPSS) will not be able to
> efficiently support complex B2B transactions. Everybody knows this and
> talk about it in private.
> To be fair XLang, and WSFL are not smarter but MS and IBM are so
> entrenched in selling Web Service infrastructure that I can excuse
them,
> why do BPMI has to do the same mistake? I don't know. My prediction is
> that BPML will suffer the same fate of other Process-Oriented
languages
> which all failed to look at the problem globally and just addressed
one
> aspect of business processes, therefore limiting tremendously the
value
> and the adoption of the technology.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
