Re: Proposed BP PT comments on Requirements

["Rémy Marchand" <rm-edi@worldnet.fr>]

According to me there is a way to find a consensus on the question of EAI
(Enterprise Application Integration), B2B, IAI (Internet Application
Integration) concerning BP PT requirements.

Firstly, I think that the scope of ebXML should be concentrated on specific
problems concerning B2B without ambitioning to standardise the whole domain
covered by all the softwares used within companies.
Secondly, I wonder if the frontier is as clear as it appears at a first
glance between EAI and B2B. For example, I work for a company which has
clients, suppliers and this is clearly B2B. This company is naturally
selling products to his clients.
But this company has also subsidiaries in US, Japan, Europe which also buy
and resell these products. These subsidiaries are playing almost exactely
the same role as the independant clients, sending orders, receiving invoices
etc..It has been decided by my client that the same Integration platform and
almost the same scenarios/messages will be used for both types of exchanges,
with clients and with subsidiaries. This is just a nuance in face of the
first point.
Thirdly, XML offers interesting possibilities which can be used to update or
modify (edit) a message previously sent. To be included in ebXML BP PT.
Fourthly, the OAG makes an interesting distinction concerning a Business
Object Document or BOD. There is, within a BOD, a Business Data Area and a
Business Service Request which explains what the partner has to do with the
information contained in the BDA. This clear distinction between an Object
and the way this Object is processed is interesting.
Fithly and lastly, ERP vendors are more and more concerned with the vertical
customisation of their solutions prior to sell them. Users applaud. They are
also interested in facilitating the exchanges of business documents between
the  ERP X of company A and the ERP Y of company B. This has to be
encouraged. Is it EAI or B2B ?

Conclusion
Concerning the type of work that will be done within ebXML, it is really
important to recognise the value of the works done in other organisations
provided that this work is done in the open place and with adequate
professional expertise. A clear liaison statement has to be done with such
organisations.
But I would like to strongly recommend to our US friends to consider that
North America is not the whole world.
Coding characters cannot be any longer solely US ASCII for example.
Multilingualism is a clear business need, for repositories in particular,
which does not precludes having english as a working language.

----- Message d'origine -----
De : William J. Kammerer <wkammerer@foresightcorp.com>
À : <ebXML-BP@lists.oasis-open.org>
Envoyé : jeudi 23 mars 2000 17:48
Objet : Re: Proposed BP PT comments on Requirements


> Is there really any need for open, rigorous, consensus-based standards
> when dealing with internal  business units?  There's nothing that stops
> an organization now from using XML internally for EAI.  The point of
> ebXML is to generate standards *BETWEEN* organizations, not *WITHIN*
> organizations.  Though there'd be no law against using ebXML to
> integrate applications within an organization, I suspect it would be
> overkill (like using X12 or EDIFACT to bind together internal
> applications).  Let's not expand the scope.  ebXML will be complicated
> enough.
>
> William J. Kammerer
> FORESIGHT Corp.
> 4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy.
> Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
> (614) 791-1600
>
> Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
> "Commerce for a New World"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miller, Robert (GEIS) <Robert.Miller@geis.ge.com>
> To: ebXML-BP@lists.oasis-open.org <ebXML-BP@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: Thursday, March 23, 2000 10:26 AM
> Subject: RE: Proposed BP PT comments on Requirements
>
>
> I for one have no problem with expanding the scope to include app-to-app
> within an enterprise.  ebXML is not about providing specific solutions,
> it
> is about providing an XML-based foundation upon which such solutions can
> be
> built.  By my reckoning, that foundation is as applicable to the
> internal
> app-to-app problem as it is to the external app-to-app problem we call
> B2B.
>
> Cheers,
>        Bob Miller
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Haugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 7:28 AM
> To: ebXML-BP@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed BP PT comments on Requirements
>
>
> Paul Levine wrote:
> >I have taken the opportunity to propose a few other
> >revisions that specifically include within the ebXML scope app-to-app
> >applications of XML within an enterprise.  This is very important for
> large
> >enterprises that have networks of operations support systems that have
> to
> >interoperate.
>
> Why duplicate what the OAG is doing in this space?
> Is there anything wrong with their efforts?
> Is there any real confusion about the generally-accepted
> app-to-app standards org?  (Anything like the obvious confusion
> about B2B standards?)
> What do you think this will do to the scope of ebXML?
> Won't it require expanding to include everything in the
> OAG standards and then some?
>
> As you can tell, I am resistant to an expansion of scope,
> but do not want to misunderstand your proposal.
> Can you explain more about why you are proposing it?
> And maybe more of the scope of your intention?
> (For example, if all you mean is party-to-party dealings within
> an enterprise, where "parties" are different business units, and
> the same ebXML B2B standards can be used, then my objections
> do not hold.  But if you mean any and all internal apps, and
> all their integration requirements, I suspect it's a big expansion.)
>
> Respectfully,
> Bob Haugen
>
>
>
>
>