Pae, Forgive me. I never meant to imply that SOAP/WSDL/UDDI is better than ebXML. I simply meant to say that they are different. And that Sun focused their efforts on ebXML and was very reluctant to contribute to SOAP/WSDL/UDDI.
We started this conversation by talking about WS-I and why Sun wasn't invited to be a founding board member. WS-I is focused on defining a set of best practices to ensure interoperability based on SOAP/WSDL/UDDI. At the time that MSFT/IBM/BEA/others launched WS-I, Sun was not fully engaged in developing Web services based on SOAP/WSDL/UDDI. In fact, Sun had a history of maligning and undermining this technology because they viewed it as competitive to ebXML. I think this is the primary reason why Sun wasn't invited to be on the WS-I board. I applaud Sun for their work in ebXML. Without their contribution, I doubt that ebXML would have completed any of its mission within the targeted 18 months. (It only completed the portions that Sun contributed to.) ebXML is very interesting technology, but it addresses only a small segment of the Web services market (e-business colaboration). SOAP/WSDL/UDDI has much wider application than ebXML, and, world-wide, it's been much more widely adopted. If Sun wants to play a major role in the Web services market, they need to make constructive contributions to the SOAP/WSDL/UDDI technologies. And that didn't start happening until this year. Here in the States (and in Europe), it doesn't matter that SOAP 1.1 and WSDL 1.1 are just W3C Notes rather than formal Recommendations. They have become defacto standards. There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of deployed applications running in production based on SOAP and WSDL. Companies like Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile, StarTV, and Amazon process millions of dollars through SOAP-based Web services. But SOAP 1.1 and WSDL 1.1 aren't perfect. There are inconsistencies and omissions in the specs. Interoperability can be a challenge. SOAPbuilders is an informal organization that is working to resolve interoperability issues in the products, and WS-I is a formal organization that is working to define best practices for developers to ensure that they can build interoperable services. Meanwhile W3C is developing formal recommendations based on these technologies. SOAP 1.2 should be complete early next year. WSDL 1.2 should be complete by the end of next year. UDDI is now managed at OASIS. UDDI V2.0 and V3.0 are OASIS Committee Specifications. Also, UDDI "adopted" WSDL right from the beginning. (remember: IBM and Microsoft invented them both) The UDDI APIs (V1, V2, and V3) are defined by WSDL. The UDDI Type "wsdlSpec" was introduced in UDDI V1. The "Using WSDL with UDDI Registries" best practice document was published in March 2001, before the WSDL 1.1 spec was even complete. Best regards, Anne > -----Original Message----- > From: Pae Choi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 3:33 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Document style web services > > > I see where you are coming from. And I also remember that the > early ebXML TRP(now MS) -- I believe it was 0.x release which > should be consider as an initial conceptual rough sketch -- did > adopted the SOAP. Alomst, if not all, all specs in the early stage > are not so mature that includes all submissions to W3C as well. > Even take a look at the evolution of Axis. The early stage of > any artifact should not be criticized. > > And that's true ebXML has own stuff all that you mentined. > Shouldn't those considered as positive artifacts. They have finer > refinements than the combination you mentioned. Also, WSDL > is only a "Note" and UDDI did not even considered the WSDL > adoption until the recent release. And those are mainly happened > IBM/MS marrage. I don't think the UDDI is even came to the door > at W3C. > > Also, if SOAP/WSDL/UDDI is a such perfect combination, why W3C > is working on a new Working Group for Choreography even though > we have many of those from different suggestions led by some > vendors or marriage of some among them. To wit, the current work > and the related artificats at W3C are not even sufficient Web services. > > All these things are just part of transition toward the better > collaborative solution. In that transition, the combination of SOAP/ > WSDL/UDDI should not be consider only way to stick around. For > example, AFAIK, the asian community adopted ebXML more than > the combination you mentioned and they are already in practice > in the real world. Because ebXML is a formal standard in the > international community. the combination you mentioned is not > even US standard. > > Some of vendors think and behave that if they make an ".org" site > with their "neo-" vendors, it becomes the standard. Silly! They are > only creating a chaos from the negative viewpoint and the early > sign of needs from the positive point of view. > > Why are all those things, including Web services, are going on and > attracting the international community is the "Interoperability." I > know if they all gathered together and prepared well at the early > stage to create an unified interantional standard, it would more > efficient and effective. But the level in the present world we are living > is not just that mature. > > > Pae > > > > > Back in 2000, ebXML was not based on SOAP. ebXML didn't adopt SOAP until > > January 2001. And even though it has now adopted SOAP, the ebXML > > infrastructure isn't compatible with SOAP/WSDL/UDDI. ebXML > defines its own > > extended infrastructure. It has its own messaging system (ebXML TRP -- > > extended SOAP w/ Attachments). It has its own method of describing > services > > (BPSS and CPPA). It has its own registry (ebXML Registry). > > > > At the time Sun's reasoning was that SOAP was just a toy -- XML-based > RPC -- > > and e-business requires a more comprehensive messaging infrastructure. > Also > > (and I think this was the real thorn), Microsoft invented SOAP, so > therefore > > it must be bad. > > > > Consider this: > > > > - JAXM was launched in June 2000. Originally it was an > > API for ebXML. Only later (once ebXML had adopted SOAP > > as a basic framework) did they make it work with SOAP. > > (But JAXM still doesn't support WSDL.) > > > > - JAX-RPC wasn't launched until February of 2001 > > (after ebXML had adopted SOAP). > > > > - JAXR is based on the ebXML registry data model rather > > than the UDDI data model. > > > > - Sun doesn't include JWSDL in the list of XML APIs on > > www.jcp.org or in the JWSDP. (But then IBM lead the > > JWSDL JSR, not Sun.) <kick, stamp, pout> > > (I apologize -- I've became very disillusioned > > watching Sun act like a spoiled child) > > > > But perhaps the tide has turned. > > > > Sun has started working with SOAPbuilders (they even hosted the last > > meeting). > > And now (thankfully) they've joined WS-I. > > > > Let's hope they stay engaged. > > > > Anne > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Pae Choi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 8:51 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: Document style web services > > > > > > > > > Strange. ebXML MS is based on SOAP. Those two complement to each > > > other. It's just a higher transport than SOAP compare to SOAP over > > > HTTP, SMTP, or whatever. Why fight? > > > > > > > > > Pae > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <flame> > > > > This is a political issue between Microsoft and Sun. Just because > senior > > > > management at these companies act like little boys in a school yard, > it > > > > doesn't mean that WS-I is just some Microsoft puppet organization. > > > > > > > > There are plenty of other serious Java players that have board seats > at > > > > WS-I. To wit: BEA, IBM, and Oracle. (also Fujitsu and HP) Microsoft > only > > > has > > > > one seat on a board of 9 (soon to be 11). > > > > > > > > I think it was a serious mistake on the part of WS-I not to > > > invite Sun to > > > be > > > > on the board. It certainly has had a significant impact on > the group's > > > > credibility. But I can understand the reluctance of some of the > players > > > (not > > > > just Microsoft) to invite them to play. Sun was very slow to > > > get involved > > > > with Web services. For a very long time Sun was trying to undermine > the > > > > entire SOAP/WSDL/UDDI infrastructure in favor of ebXML. (I > > > know. I was at > > > > Sun at the time fighting in favor of SOAP.) Sun was being less than > > > > constructive in the standards efforts. Would you invite > someone to be > on > > > > your board if you had doubts about their good intentions? > > > > > > > > Almost all major web services contributions have been joint > efforts by > > > > Microsoft and IBM. Once the specs have been published, the > two of them > > > > invite others to join the work. I don't see a whole lot of > > > Microsoft hoop > > > > jumping going on. I see constructive joint effort. Sun is as welcome > to > > > join > > > > the effort as anyone else. I was very pleased to see them join > > > WS-I. They > > > > certainly didn't win any points by standing in a corner and pouting > > > because > > > > they weren't picked first. > > > > </flame> > > > > > > > > Anne > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 11:59 AM > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: RE: Document style web services > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It may be old news, but its still true. Some of us are > > > getting tired of > > > > > being made to jump through hoops to accommodate Microsoft. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Anne Thomas > > > > > > > > > > Manes" To: > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: > > > > > > > > > > t> Subject: RE: > > > > > Document style web services > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11/21/2002 > > > > > > > > > > 05:01 PM > > > > > > > > > > Please respond > > > > > > > > > > to axis-user > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's old news. > > > > > > > > > > Sun is now a member of WS-I. WS-I has added two new seats to the > > > > > board, and > > > > > there will be a vote in March to elect the new board members. > > > Let's hope > > > > > that Sun gets elected. > > > > > http://www.aspnews.com/news/article/0,,4191_1488041,00.html > > > > > > > > > > Anne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Dennis Sosnoski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 6:41 PM > > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Subject: Re: Document style web services > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >WS-I has just published its Basic Profile > > > > > > >draft, which only supports document-style. Pretty much every > > > > > > SOAP vendor is > > > > > > >involved with WS-I, so it won't be long before all SOAP > > > implementations > > > > > > >generate document style by default. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think WS-I has serious credibility problems, > especially since it > > > came > > > > > > out that Microsoft's participation was conditional on Sun being > > > excluded > > > > > > from a major role in the organization. To quote from a Bill > > > Gates memo > > > > > > in reference to WS-I which was made public during the > > > antitrust trial > > > > > > (as reported in > > > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t288-s2110205,00.html, > > > > > > for one source): "I can live with this if we have the > positioning > > > > > > clearly in our favour. In particular, Sun not being one of the > > > > > > movers/announcers/founding members." I'm sure that, as a > participant > > > in > > > > > > WS-I, you're familiar with these issues, Anne. This credibility > > > problem > > > > > > is certainly going to influence how WS-I proposals are > > > treated by the > > > > > > industry. > > > > > > > > > > > > If Sun becomes a full coequal participant in the WS-I > organization > > > it'll > > > > > > go a long way toward establishing WS-I as a bona fide forum for > > > > > > supporting interoperability. Given Sun's ownership of Java > > > and control > > > > > > over Java standards it's hard to take an organization that > excludes > > > Sun > > > > > > seriously on these issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Dennis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
