OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-architecture message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: ebXML adoption?


I believe you misunderstood my point. Let me try to rephrase: to me, there are two levels of interoperability:
business interop and technical interop.
There is NO way (nor does it make sense) to map 2 messages if they do not cover the same business. When you mean they can
interoperate at a basic level, then this could only be for that part of the business they BOTH cover. Unless with 'basic' you mean
technical interoperability, and then XML can provide assistance. Two parties wanting to exchange messages MUST agree exactly on the
business they want to exchange. If for one reason, a message does not cover the bus. functionality they want to exchange, then
either the message must be changed (e.g. new elements added), or it must be 'raped' by putting that information in fields that were
not designed to convey that kind of information.
Using your example, I suppose HL7 and FIX do not cover the same business. I don't see  from a business perspective how they can
interoperate and why they would want to?
Now bearing the above in mind, one of the advantages of business modeling is that it assists you in finding the commonalties between
2 messages from a business perspective, by first filtering out any technically related elements, resulting in a 'cleaner' mapping.

David, I would suggest to continue this discussion off-line (it's rather difficult to do this via e-mail, I have so many other
arguments, and so do you probably). I will be at the conference in Orlando early Feb. Will you be there? Or maybe we can make it a
topic on the agenda?
Would love to see this through though....


> Kris - I do not agree.  In fact what you describe is the opposite of what
> B2C is driving thru XML.
> The EDI world is transaction-centric - but an 850 comes in a thousand
> flavours.  Therefore ONE business
> standard is not feasible.  The objective is to create interoperable
> standards - so however another XML
> syntax is architected (say HL7 or FIXML or OFX - all radically different)
> they can still interoperate at
> a basic level.  See http://www.Bizcodes.org for how this works at the
> semantic level - and then
> obviously the enveloping and other areas fit around being able to uniquely
> identify like entities.
> Must dash - this is too short a note - can continue later.
> Thanks, DW.
org:S.W.I.F.T. sc;Standards
title:Product Manager Standards
fn:Kris Ketels

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC