RE: Jon Bosak's suggestion that xCBL be adopted as the ebXML Busi nessDocument framework

["Gregory, Arofan" <arofan.gregory@commerceone.com>]

Stuart:

reality check here:

Yes, we agree on many things. But the truth of the matter is that no other
XML syntax has faced the realities of supporting an XML-schema based XML
vocabulary in the kind of production environment that the xCBL team has. (I
am willing to argue this with anyone). While Bolero's work in this area has
been interesting, it does not reflect the kind of component reuse startegy
that xCBL does.

The intention in opening this up in an open standards formum is certainly to
gain benefit of input from everywhere, but I would argue that the basic need
in taking what ebXML has produced and creating a useful, standard XML
expression of the "core" will require first and foremost a management
strategy that has been tried in the real world. Managing a component-based
schrema library is not something that has been done often, but it has been
done with xCBL, albeit not in an open environment.

As for automatic generation of schemas, yes, there are a few tools that can
do this, but none that can begin to handle the complexities of the
context-informed use of Core Components. My team, as well as some others I
am in contact with, are independently trying to validate the approaches that
have been variously suggested, and in the final analysis I think there is
still a great deal of work to be done before your glib assertion that we can
"auto-generate" schemas from what ebXML provides will be true.

I suspect that many initial attempts will share the failings of attempts to
automatically translate the EDIFACT and X12 standards into XML: they abandon
many of the best features of the new syntax in order to accomodate the old.
We can do better than this, even if that involves some hand-crafting in the
meantime.

It may be we have to agree to disagree on this one: I think that xCBL
provides a strong basis on which to begin this work, and Jon Bosak and many
others have discussed the merits of this approach, and find it worth
considering. Probably nothing will be perfect, but I believe the proposed
approach is the best suggestion to date.

Cheers,

Arofan Gregory
-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart Campbell [mailto:stuart.campbell@tieglobal.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 10:24 AM
To: Gregory, Arofan; 'ebXML Core'
Subject: RE: Jon Bosak's suggestion that xCBL be adopted as the ebXML
Business Document framework


Hello Arofan

I say get the best semantics from those who *do* have this expertise, the
busines people
***Im not sure if you read all the original mail since I couldnt agree
more - as i said before "EDIFACT+ has over 10 years of producing good models
...if you extract out the underlying semantics and structures ... then you
have something decent and XML is easy to derive."

, and get the best technology approaches from those who spend their lives
working in that arena.
***Absolutely re "...forced into a heritage syntax..."

I thought that's why the UN and OASIS had joined forces in ebXML.
Personally, I think it's a great idea, even if you
do not.
***Im sure you didnt mean to put such inaccurate words in to my mouth.  I
think UN/OASIS has proved an excellent fit (although for the future i do
have so large concerns on the openness and internationalisation of OASIS -
but thats another thread!).  However, i do have a concern on adoption of
xCBL which was the only theme of the original mail:
-unless it is in an open environment
-EDIFACT(or similar) not xCBL should be the starting point for semantics
-xCBL is just one of a myriad of approaches for model to syntax dependant
realisation

* My good fried Sue Probert from C1 has clarified that xCBL plus would be in
such a open environment (so it seems like a tick in that box).
* I think for EDIFACT+ involvement the ball is now in EWG court to prove the
ebXML specifications and ideas for CC (a tick in that box)
*Finally wrt the "...the best ways of expressing those semantics in ways
that agree with the best of XML technology. I would argue that this is what
xCBL does." is of course an opinion.  Im sure many other vendors/user groups
will have theirs (TIE does offer anything here btw).  However, my
understanding is that ebXML CC would provide such a methodology and thus
when applying this to the EWG component models you should be able to come up
with XML automatically (as Phil Goatley from Bolero, and to an extent CEN
work in Europe has said several time) so im not sure what xCBL would add to
this appart from a great example of how to present - maybe you can enlighten
me.


Regards


STUART
Technical Strategy Director, Technical Strategy Team
Business Development Unit

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Campbell
TIE Holding NV
UK          T:+44 1270 254019   F:+44 7971 121013
Netherlands  T:+31 20 658 9335   F:+31 20 658 9901
Global       M:+44 7970 429251   E:stuart.campbell@TIEGlobal.com
		 W:www.TIEglobal.com P:www.stuartcampbell.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Kind Regards


STUART
Technical Strategy Director, Technical Strategy Team
Business Development Unit

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Campbell
TIE Holding NV
UK          T:+44 1270 254019   F:+44 7971 121013
Netherlands  T:+31 20 658 9335   F:+31 20 658 9901
Global       M:+44 7970 429251   E:stuart.campbell@TIEGlobal.com
		 W:www.TIEglobal.com P:www.stuartcampbell.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


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