It was an example. Would it make sense to have an "ebXML architecture" which could be interpreted to allow using UDDI, SOAP and BPEL instead of ebReg+ebMS+ebBP? I think not.
Implementability in a concrete sense means we need to make choices, and those choices should be ebXML components wherever possible.
-Matt
On Dec 22, 2003, at 12:56 PM, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
If there is an ebXML Architecture, it should not be agnostic to implementation.
I think I understand above to mean that ebXML Architecture should be implementable and not some pie-in-sky that has no basis in reality. If so I agree.
In other words, ebxml-bp should be specified over BPEL.
Now you have lost me. What does line above have to do with the first statement?
--
Farrukh
___________________________
Matthew MacKenzie
Senior Architect
Intelligent Documents Business Unit
Adobe Systems Canada Inc.
http://www.adobe.com/
506 869.0175
