RE: ebXML and RosettaNet

["Sharma, Nita" <nsharma@netfish.com>]

Hi Erik,

as clearly explained by John, you will definitely be able to use the
RosettaNet PIPs within the ebXML framework. It is a matter of choosing the
appropriate transaction (here PIP) and associating it to a Binary business
collaboration . The attached document might provide you some more insight
into what we in ebXML-BP are trying to achieve, to support various industry
standards. 

cheers

- Nita


-----Original Message-----
From: John Yunker [mailto:JohnY@EDIFECS.COM]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 2:15 PM
To: Erik.J.Leckner@seagate.com; ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: ebXML and RosettaNet


Erik,

I have participated in groups defining both the RosettaNet and ebXML
architecture. These comments are my own opinion and are not binding on
anyone in either organization.

ebXML messaging infrastructure meets the requirements for executing
RosettaNet PIPs. Several key members of the RNIF 2.0 team are also members
of ebXML TRP, TPA, and BP.

Also, the meta-metamodel upon which the specifications are based is common
between RosettaNet and ebXML, and has become part of the UN/CEFACT TMWG UMM.

That said, there is no formal alignment at a specification level between the
two groups... In fact there is a divergence of primary goal between the two
groups. ebXML goal is to be horizontal enabler, and is currently embracing
many busines message groups, with wide latitude for individual members use
of formats. RosettaNet goal is interoperability between members, and
strongly constrains the element level content in their messages.

It is very likely that RosettaNet messages will be executable within the
ebXML context, although there will probably not be strong restrictions on
message use, which begs the question "is it really RosettaNet, or just a
borrowing of their layouts". Only a RosettaNet offical will be able to
express their policy with regard to use of their formats outside of the RN
group.
Your question includes the phrase "ebXML defines similar specifications for
industries such as disk-drive designers/manufacturers". This is as far as I
can tell a non-issue, since ebXML will not be developing specifications for
specific industries. It is highly likely that the task of creating
specifications (when existing ones are not simply "adopted for use") will
fall to a group such as X12, OAG, or UN/CEFACT. This is a current area of
discussion that you should become involved in through BP/CC.
My observations only,
John


-----Original Message-----
From: Erik.J.Leckner@seagate.com [mailto:Erik.J.Leckner@seagate.com]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 1:55 PM
To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: ebXML and RosettaNet
Importance: High



Hi,


Could anyone please answer the following question?

Will ebXML's components be a replacement for RosettaNet PIP documents
transferred in b2b
exchanges or will ebxml support RosettaNet PIPs, as is? I would like to
know whether or not
this will change as ebXML defines similar specifications for industries
such as disk-drive designers/manufacturers (computer hardware, etc.).

Best Regards,
Erik J Leckner
Seagate Technology, LLC
San Jose, CA
Director, Technical Architecture & Standards



------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org

------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org

catalog.pdf