RE: Party XML Schema Defintions

[Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>]

I do not think that the scenarios that Duane and Martin foresse actually
would be of wide use except than in very specific situations where the SME
has no infrastructure at all (i.e. they do not have any form of application
which currently helps them tracking and doing their work) and if the
BusinessProcess is very very trivial.

If an SME simply has a small application using FoxPro or Access, it has an
application (legacy) that is currently used. I do not think that it will be
viable to avoid to link such application with the possibility of running
ebXML Conversations. SME would not enter twice the same PO !

Also, there is the "problem" of the Business Process (and of the CPA). In a
first approximation, the ebXML software could simply deal with the
sending/receving of XML documents; but, I think, it will be also required to
have some software which manages the conversation, i.e. helps the SME to
executing the Business Process that has been agreed with the other party.
Leaving the process management completely to human activity would not be of
great help. (Here I am not saying that the process MUST ALWAYS be automated
and no human intervention is required. But that a support for ensuring that
the Business Process is run accordingly to the CPA is something that users
will need).

In this context, even if I do not have an already existing application to
interface with ebXML, I think that a solution composed by XML/XSLT would be
viable only if the BP is very trivial (I do not think that XSLT could be
used also for that).

/Stefano

» -----Original Message-----
» From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com]
» Sent: 02 February 2001 18:47
» To: Martin Bryan
» Cc: ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org; james.whittle@e-centre.org.uk;
» ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
» Subject: Re: Party XML Schema Defintions
»
»
»
»
» Martin Bryan wrote:
» >
»  What alternative do you propose that offers the same
» > functionality (and please don't use a four letter word
» beginning with J).
» >>>>
»
» Martin:
»
» Sorry - I may not have been clear with my comment.  I was not advocating
» banning of XSLT, I felt it was not proper to mandate its' use.
»
» I am sure, as you pointed out, that many SME and SME intergrators will
» build web based systems using browsers and XML+XSL(T).
»
» Lost cost to SMEs' has to be of paramount importance.  It may be as
» simple as an SME using a web page to find LargeCo's CPP, hitting a
» hyperlink or two to retrieve their BPD and then subsequently building an
» HTML form based on an XML file (possibly using XSLT) to fill out an
» invoice or PO.
»
» XSLT has many advantages however, it is not the only transformation
» technology.  Many vendors have XSLT type funtionality in their
» products.  We also have to possibly include SQL, CSV, EDI and CGI to XML
» transformations.  This goes beyond XML -> XML which means that scoping
» XSLT as the official methodology may not work for all businesses.
»
» YOu make some great comments about SME's.  I feel, as you do, that it is
» important for us all to keep them in mind as ebXML moves forward.
»
» Cheers
»
» Duane
»