Re: [regrep] V3.0 of ebXML for SOA

Matthew MacKenzie wrote:

> 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. 

Aah! I understand and agree completely.

Your statement "ebxml-bp should be specified over BPEL" threw me off as 
I incorrectly interpretted it as you suggesting the ebxml-bp should be 
re-define to layer on top of BPEL. Needless to say I was surprised.

Thanks for clearing up things and restoring my sanity ;-)

--
Farrukh