Re: ebXML and RosettaNet

[Erik.J.Leckner@seagate.com]

All,

For clarification purposes, I would like to summarise the conclusion from this discussion:

   An ebXML-based service cannot deliver RNet PIPs without transformation from RNIF or UMM to BP.
   This makes defining interworking ('interoperability') between the two services/architectures somewhat of a daunting task.

   Question: Is it in ebXML's scope to interwork with all or a select set of existing electronic business exchange industry
           standards, such as RosettaNet? If it is all, then obviously ebXML can not focus on one set of standards to interwork.
             ebXML would then act as the convergence point for all B2B standards .

   John stated that 'Only a RosettaNet offical will be able to express their policy with regard to use of their formats outside of the
   RN group.' This sounds like ebXML might need to address this topic with the possibility of defining interworking gateways or 'bridges'
   between various industry standards, such as RosettaNet. Otherwise, this topic might always come up in the future when an organization
   must define their own mapping/bridge between the two standards, if they choose to support multiple standards, such as ebXML and
   RosettaNet.

   Question: Should ebXML define the specification of interoperability mechanisms to enable multi-standard communication to take place,
             If so, the work would have to be based on a set of scenarios, such as this:

          1. ebXML to RosettNet
          2. RosettaNet to ebXML
          3. ebXML to 'standard x'
          4. 'standard x' to ebXML
               ...

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





Jim Clark <jdc-icot@lcc.net> on 03/24/2001 09:28:25 AM

To:   John Yunker <JohnY@Edifecs.com>
cc:   Erik.J.Leckner@seagate.com, ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org

Subject:  Re: ebXML and RosettaNet


Gentlemen,

I would like to add my 2 cents worth. Like John I have been involved in
both
efforts.

First, I fully concur with John's assessment, however, I would like to
expand on
a few issues.

In that there are some structural differences between a ebXML document and
a
RNet document, I do not believe that they are interexchangeable as is.
ebXML has
added some elements and moved some others. If a process requires some of
these
new elements, one will not be able to use a RNet Doc without adding this
info.
If one were to use a ebXML compliant document in an RNet implementation, it
may
require some restructuring. (not a difficult problem). Conclusion: use RNet
in
ebXML - maybe; use ebXML in RNet - most likely; so it may be best to model
or
define documents in ebXML so that the effort to use in both places is
minimal.

RNet PIPs- Along with the divergence in goals has been a divergence in
perspectives. This shows up in divergence in the BP Specification Schema
from
the UMM MetaModel. Any process definition that is built on the UMM
Metamodel or
the RNIF1.0 or RNIF2.0 will be directly interchangeable. RNIF was built on
the
UMM Architecture and is a subset of the UMM.  Any process definition built
on
the BP Specification Schema will need transformation or production rules to
map
from the BP Schema to RNIF or UMM. It is too early to determine, but I do
not
believe that this transformation can be done without lose of semantics
between
the two representations.

We may be close to interoperability but not interchangeability.

Jim Clark
Dir of Industry Solutions
E2open
936.264.3366

John Yunker wrote:

> 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

(See attached file: jdc-icot.vcf)

=?iso-8859-1?Q?jdc-icot.vcf?=