Thanks for your comments on the Basic B2B Profile. I thought it was interesting that you would comment on the name of the profile. In fact, you are not the only one to have done so: Gartner's David Smith didn't like the name either, pointing out that it wasn't very "basic" and that it had applicability far beyond "B2B", and that the combination of the terms really sells the profile short. We're considering a name change. Do you have any specific names you'd like to suggest? Of course, changing the name of the profile would need to be done very carefully so as not to cause too much confusion.
On your "when will IBM provide support" question, we obviously can't speak for others, so you'll need to ask to them yourself, but here's the IBM story. Our work in WS-I has convinced us that developing a good profile requires sample applications, test tools, usage patterns, and of course product support, in addition to the profile document; each tends to help improve the other (usage patterns point out issues with the profile, sample applications demonstrate how to apply the usage patterns, etc.). So, we are considering developing some alpha/beta deliverables to accompany this effort. What are your views regarding what sort of content we should focus on? For instance, should we worry about validation tools, or can we initially focus on code gen for strictly conformant services? Also, are there patterns of Web services usage that this profile does not cover that you think it should?
I look forward to hearing from you again.
Regards,
Rimas V. Rekasius
e-business Industry Standards Architect
1-312-245-6775 (voice/FAX)
1-773-934-2705 (cell phone)
Feedback Comments:
The profile is interesting; I would suggest changing the name since this
WS-Addressing / WS-RM combo is just equally useful for A2A applications.
Also some hint on when we will be able to implement this profile with IBM
technology (an others :-) seems appropriate
----- Forwarded by Rimas Rekasius/Chicago/IBM on 04/29/2005 05:25 PM -----
"Jacques TALBOT" <jacques.tal...@teamlog.com> 04/12/2005 02:25 AM
Please respond to
jacques.talbot
To
Rimas Rekasius/Chicago/IBM@IBMUS
cc
"Jacques Talbot@FTArchinooT" <jtalbot....@rd.francetelecom.com>
Subject
RE: Spec Feedback - basicb2b
Rimas,
thanks for listening
My suggestions below
Bye
Thanks for your comments on the Basic B2B Profile. I thought it was interesting that you would comment on the name of the profile. In fact, you are not the only one to have done so: Gartner's David Smith didn't like the name either, pointing out that it wasn't very "basic" and that it had applicability far beyond "B2B", and that the combination of the terms really sells the profile short. We're considering a name change. Do you have any specific names you'd like to suggest? Of course, changing the name of the profile would need to be done very carefully so as not to cause too much confusion.
I would suggest to put it in the context of the "namespace" that ws-i is considering for its profiles.
Options
1) we want to be technical and "reliable asynchronous" are the keywords
2) we want to be business and call it "business critical"
3) we want to stay in the "basic" style namespace: call it "advanced",
4) we want to be abstract and any namespace will do: colors for example, call it the purple profile
5) use a typical application for which this profile is the "killer": e.g. "fund transfer"
I am not sure which one I prefer :-)
On your "when will IBM provide support" question, we obviously can't speak for others, so you'll need to ask to them yourself, but here's the IBM story. Our work in WS-I has convinced us that developing a good profile requires sample applications, test tools, usage patterns, and of course product support, in addition to the profile document; each tends to help improve the other (usage patterns point out issues with the profile, sample applications demonstrate how to apply the usage patterns, etc.). So, we are considering developing some alpha/beta deliverables to accompany this effort. What are your views regarding what sort of content we should focus on? For instance, should we worry about validation tools, or can we initially focus on code gen for strictly conformant services? Also, are there patterns of Web services usage that this profile does not cover that you think it should?
I've got a project with a customer where I use WS6 and would like to be beta for WS7 and test drive this profile, so my requirements in priority order:
#1 a compliant beta WebSphere with associated RAD tooling #2 proof that WebSphere interoperates with WebLogic and Windows, and less priority Axis2
#3 redbook or article explaining the best practices for asynchronism, with sample apps... #4 performance data
#5 validation tools can come later
I would like the profile to cover the various asynchronous MEPs,clarifying the issues between the WSDL and SOAP MEPs
(great article from Dave Orchard on this topic Underlying Protocol is a completely leaky abstraction)
I very much would like an Eventing profile, but this belongs to a different profiel I believe
My 2 cents --
Jacques Talbot - Teamlog 10 rue Lavoisier - 38330 Montbonnot
Tél: 04 76 61 37 12 Mél: jacques.tal...@teamlog.com
Tél. mobile 06 07 83 42 00
----- Forwarded by Rimas Rekasius/Chicago/IBM on 04/29/2005 05:28 PM -----
Rimas Rekasius/Chicago/IBM
04/14/2005 10:38 AM
To
<jacques.tal...@teamlog.com>
cc
"Jacques Talbot@FTArchinooT" <jtalbot....@rd.francetelecom.com>
Subject
RE: Spec Feedback - basicb2b
Jacques,
Thanks for your suggestions. I like the way that you look at the topic of profile name from the perspective of "namespaces"... I think that with the initial name we were trying to mix two different namespaces: "B2B" came from the types of business solutions this profile hopefully enables (#2 below), and "Basic" came from the WS-I naming convention (#3 below). I think our problems came about because we were scoping "Basic" to "B2B", not to Web services usage in general, and also the fact that B2B is not the only type of business solution enabled by this profile. B2B was just the one that we chose to highlight. Of your suggested names, I think that I like #1 the best, but I think I would modify it ever so slightly to #1a... Reliable Asynchronous Messaging Profile. Since I work for IBM, I can't help but to think in terms of acronyms, and I like how RAMP works. Imagine the marketing slogans possible: "RAMP up your business with Web services!". I will share your suggestions with the others who have been involved with the Basic B2B Profile and see what they think.
I will also share your thoughts on the types of support that you'd like to see for this profile. I found it interesting that you prioritized validation tools as low as you did. This type of prioritization will be invaluable in helping align our development efforts with the deliverables most likely to have an impact for our customers.
Finally, I am interested in the types of (business) use cases and/or (technical) usage patterns that you envision which prompted you to mention the need for eventing. We do have plans for subsequent profiles which would build on top of the Basic B2B Profile (or whatever we end up calling it), so your ideas on this subject would very much be appreciated.
Regards,
Rimas V. Rekasius
e-business Industry Standards Architect
1-312-245-6775 (voice/FAX)
1-773-934-2705 (cell phone)
P.S. Thanks for the reference to David Orchard's article. I have taken a quick look at it, but I definitely need to study it in more detail.
----- Forwarded by Rimas Rekasius/Chicago/IBM on 04/29/2005 05:31 PM -----
"Jacques TALBOT" <jacques.tal...@teamlog.com> 04/18/2005 03:04 AM
Please respond to
jacques.talbot
To
Rimas Rekasius/Chicago/IBM@IBMUS
cc
<regis.coque...@fr.ibm.com>
Subject
RE: Spec Feedback - basicb2b
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Rimas Rekasius [mailto:ri...@us.ibm.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 14 avril 2005 17:38
À : jacques.tal...@teamlog.com
Cc : Jacques Talbot@FTArchinooT
Objet : RE: Spec Feedback - basicb2b
Jacques,
Thanks for your suggestions. I like the way that you look at the topic of profile name from the perspective of "namespaces"... I think that with the initial name we were trying to mix two different namespaces: "B2B" came from the types of business solutions this profile hopefully enables (#2 below), and "Basic" came from the WS-I naming convention (#3 below). I think our problems came about because we were scoping "Basic" to "B2B", not to Web services usage in general, and also the fact that B2B is not the only type of business solution enabled by this profile. B2B was just the one that we chose to highlight. Of your suggested names, I think that I like #1 the best, but I think I would modify it ever so slightly to #1a... Reliable Asynchronous Messaging Profile. Since I work for IBM, I can't help but to think in terms of acronyms, and I like how RAMP works. Imagine the marketing slogans possible: "RAMP up your business with Web services!". Woa, as a techie with some markedroid genes bolted on, I like this one! I will share your suggestions with the others who have been involved with the Basic B2B Profile and see what they think.
I will also share your thoughts on the types of support that you'd like to see for this profile. I found it interesting that you prioritized validation tools as low as you did. This type of prioritization will be invaluable in helping align our development efforts with the deliverables most likely to have an impact for our customers.
Finally, I am interested in the types of (business) use cases and/or (technical) usage patterns that you envision which prompted you to mention the need for eventing. We do have plans for subsequent profiles which would build on top of the Basic B2B Profile (or whatever we end up calling it), so your ideas on this subject would very much be appreciated.
On this topic, since I work with IBM and one specific customer as a consultant, I suggest you get in touch with Regis.Coque...@fr.ibm.com so we wiil not be embarassed with confidentiality issues Jacques
Regards,
Rimas V. Rekasius
e-business Industry Standards Architect
1-312-245-6775 (voice/FAX)
1-773-934-2705 (cell phone)
P.S. Thanks for the reference to David Orchard's article. I have taken a quick look at it, but I definitely need to study it in more detail.
|
