Comparing WSDL-Based and ebXML-Based Approaches for B2B Protocol Specification

  • Martin Bernauer
  • Gerti Kappel
  • Gerhard Kramler
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2910)


When automating business processes spanning organizational boundaries, it is required to explicitly specify the interfaces of the cooperating software systems in order to achieve the desired properties of interoperability and loose coupling. So-called B2B protocols provide for the formal specification of relevant aspects of an interface, ranging from document types to transactions. Currently, there are two main approaches proposed for the specification of B2B protocols, the WSDL-based approach supporting Web Service languages, and the ebXML-based approach supporting languages defined along the ebXML project. Unfortunately, these approaches are not compatible, thus an organization wanting to engage in B2B collaboration needs to decide whether to embark on any of these new approaches, and which ones to use. This paper introduces a conceptual framework for B2B protocols, and based on this framework, a methodical comparison of the two approaches is provided, answering the questions of what the differences are and whether there are chances to achieve interoperability.


Interaction Type Service Type Document Type Information Item Interaction Layer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    BEA, IBM, Microsoft, SAP, and Siebel. Business Process Execution Language for Web Services, Version 1.1 (May 2003),
  2. 2.
    Bernauer, M., Kappel, G., Kramler, G., Retschitzegger, W.: Specification of Interorganizational Workflows – A Comparison of Approaches. In: Proceedings of the 7th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, SCI 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bussler, C.: B2B Protocol Standards and their Role in Semantic B2B Integration Engines. In: Bulletin of the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Data Engineering, vol. 24, pp. 3–11. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bussler, C.: Modeling and Executing Semantic B2B Integration. In: Proceedings of the 12th Int’l Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering: Enginering e-Commerce/e-Business Systems (RIDE 2002), IEEE, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, Q., Dayal, U., Hsu, M.: Conceptual Modeling for Collaborative E-business Processes. In: Kunii, H.S., Jajodia, S., Sølvberg, A. (eds.) ER 2001. LNCS, vol. 2224, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, Q., Hsu, M.: CPM Revisited – An Architecture Comparison. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., et al. (eds.) CoopIS 2002, DOA 2002, and ODBASE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2519, pp. 72–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    eCo Working Group. eCo Architecture for Electronic Commerce Interoperability (1999),
  8. 8.
    Haugen, B., Fletcher, T.: Multi-Party Electronic Business Transactions, Version 1.1 (2002),
  9. 9.
    IBM, Microsoft, RSA, and VeriSign. Web Services Security Policy Language (WSSecurityPolicy) (2002),
  10. 10.
    Jenz, D.E.: The ’big boys’ unite forces – What does it mean for you? (2002),
  11. 11.
    Kramler, G.: B2B Protocol Specification by Example Using WSDL and ebXML. Technical Report (2003),
  12. 12.
    Kreger, H.: Web Services Conceptual Architecture (WSCA 1.0) (May 2001),
  13. 13.
    OASIS. ebXML Collaboration-Protocol Profile and Agreement Specification, Version 2.0 (2002),
  14. 14.
    OASIS. ebXML Message Service Specification, Version 2.0 (2002),
  15. 15.
    OMG. UML Profile for Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Specification. OMG Adopted Specification ptc/2002-02-05 (February 2002),
  16. 16.
    Peltz, C.: Web services orchestration – A review of emerging technologies, tools, and standards (2003),
  17. 17.
    Rausch-Schott, S.: TriGS flow – Workflow Management Based on Active Object- Oriented Database Systems and Extended Transaction Mechanisms. PhD thesis, University at Linz (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shapiro, R.: A Comparison of XPDL, BPML, and BPEL4WS (2002),
  19. 19.
    UN/CEFACT. UN/CEFACT Modeling Methodology (N090 of TMWG) (2001),
  20. 20.
    UN/CEFACT. ebXML Core Components Technical Specification, Version 1.90 (2002),
  21. 21.
    UN/CEFACT and OASIS. ebXML Business Process Specification Schema, Version 1.01 (May 2001),
  22. 22.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Don’t go with the flow: Web services composition standards exposed. In: IEEE Intelligent Systems, IEEE, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., Weske, M.: The P2P Approach to Interorganizational Workflows. In: Dittrich, K.R., Geppert, A., Norrie, M.C. (eds.) CAiSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2068, p. 140. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    W3C. Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1, W3C Note (2001),
  25. 25.
    W3C. XML Schema Part 1: Structures, W3C Recommendation (May 2001),
  26. 26.
    W3C. XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes, W3C Recommendation (May 2001),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Bernauer
    • 1
  • Gerti Kappel
    • 1
  • Gerhard Kramler
    • 1
  1. 1.Business Informatics GroupVienna University of TechnologyAustria

Personalised recommendations