My conjecture is that the specification produced by the WS-RX WG
will have significant differences from the earlier WS-RM specifiaction.
A new name will prevent confusion.
All the best, Ashok
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jorgen Thelin [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 11:26 AM
> To: ;
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
>
> At least 7 companies are already shipping products
> implementing the submitted WS-ReliableMessaging specs, so the
> current name for this spec is already well established in
> customers minds and the market place at large.
>
> According to MSN Search, there are already 10x more
> occurrences of the term WS-RM than for WS-RX. Google produces
> similar results (modulo confusion with various similarly
> named radio stations around the world).
> These figures illustrate how established the current name
> already is in the industry, and how much of an uphill push it
> would be to switch to a new name.
>
> Regarding "possible confusion with [the name of] other
> documents in the same space", the name "Reliable Messaging"
> is already just as different from "Reliability" as "Reliable
> Exchange" is. This is like saying "oranges are better than
> apples when compared to bananas"! Why make a gratuitous
> change to something that clearly isn't broken?
>
> As a comparison, are there any of the specs being produced by
> the WS-CAF TC that will be named "WS-CAF". Will Oracle be
> making a similar proposal there too?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 8:51 AM
> To:
> Subject: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i014
>
> The Oracle folks would like to express our preference on issue i014.
>
> We would like the documents to be named WS-RX (Web Services
> Reliable Exchange).
> This aligns the names of the documents with the name of the
> WG. It also removes possible confusion with other documents
> in the same space.
>
> All the best, Ashok
>
>
>
>
