Subject: Fw: What do people really expect from ebXML?
Attached is a message from Andreas Schultz. If you have multiple e-mail accounts, you must post messages to ebXML-core using the e-mail address you (were) subscribed with. Outlook Express can be used to set an alias using Tools | Accounts. I am sending this message simulating Andreas' old account, so there are fewer messages that appear to be from me. I have been informed by the list owner, privately, that I "...win the award for the largest quantity of 'unsubscribes' per message than anyone else on the CC list!" But as there were 563 subscribers to ebXML-core exactly a week ago - and today there are 564 - there is little evidence to prove that open, candid discussion of technical issues is a proximate cause of any "unsubscribes." Typical examples of unsubscribes include Mike Rawlins unsubscribing from his old account and re-subscribing under his new. William J. Kammerer FORESIGHT Corp. 4950 Blazer Pkwy. Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305 +1 614 791-1600 Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/ "accelerating time-to-trade"
- From: Schultz.DKV@t-online.de (Andreas Schultz)
- To: "William J. Kammerer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:04:03 +0200Hi William J(J), I asked the administrators to change my email address, but it is not done yet, so I have to ask you again to forward this for me. Thank you! Andreas Schultz William has raised a very good question,"why is it expected that the standards and products built upon > the CC specs will result in anything better than what we have today with > EDI?" I think we have to distinguish the semantic content of EDI (especially UN/EDIFACT) and the syntactical implementations. It seems to be true, that the implementation of EDI is very difficult (cost intensiv and complex) for SME's. But it seems to be also true, that there is yet no alternative for exchanging mass data in an B2B environment. As far as I understood, XML is not a sufficent way to do the same. On the other hand, I do not believe, that we can handle all the business via a PDA or something like that. But let's think there is no problem with that, than we have one (very) little message to be exchanged. But what's about the big number of parts data a supplier has to exchange with a manufacturer. So, where does the CC lead us to. First it's a new approach to come to data descriptions which, because of it's syntax-neutrality, can be used as a basis for Data Exchange on different syntaxes. Which means, from the models populated with this data you can derive an EDIFACT Message or an XML message it's the same for both. So especially big companies can deliver the data in a format the SME's can process (automatically or "by Hand") and they can read the incoming data. Allthough, I guess this is a step backward's, because a company has to have again more than one interface to understand the data coming in. One of the ideas of EDI was to reduce the number of interface to minimise the cost. But maybe this will be compensated by the benefit of having electronic data interchange with a larger number of companies and from the automated processing of this data. So, the syntax neutral base is the one thing. The other is, that the CC is really cross sectorial. The same (core) data now means the same in all industries. And having started this within ebXML, this work will be continued by the joint group out of ASC X12 and EWG. David wrote: "it's just like a steam engine.... it's time for a change..... " - It is good to have a machine that works, to bear heavy loads (mass data) but it is also good to have a smaller machine for smaller loads. So, it's not the question for changing the world but for expanding to be enabled to react on new requiremnts. > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: William J. Kammerer [mailto:email@example.com] > Gesendet am: Montag, 23. April 2001 15:23 > An: ebXML Core > Betreff: What do people really expect from ebXML? > > What do people really expect from ebXML? Or in other words, what do > businesses expect from ebXML Core Components? I can reduce the scope of > my first question simply because I think I can answer why they might > want TR&P Messaging Services, the Registry, and Automated Trading > Partner Agreements. I might even be able to make a stab at answering > that for Business Process modeling. > > For example, TR&P Messaging Services is giving folks something much > better than what they have now, replacing EDIINT AS1 and AS2 for > point-to-point EDI over the Internet. The Registry and Repository will > at least be able to let you automatically locate your Trading partners' > CPPs (Collaboration Partner Profile), and thus automate the process of > "hooking" up to them - avoiding the pain of the trading partner > maintenance required of EDI over the Internet packages today. Just > these two parts of ebXML could completely remove what's perceived > (perhaps incorrectly) as a major impediment to automated B2B > interoperability (e.g., EDI) - the "expensive" VAN. Throw in a few > more examples, and people will immediately discern the benefit of ebXML > in ameliorating the misery of what they go through today. > > I'm asking questions like these, especially of real businesses (as > opposed to vendors), to share with some folks in Marketing and > Awareness. After suitable distillation, a talented writer like Alan > Kotok will probably be able to help craft convincing propaganda pieces. > If you do have additional ideas on why Messaging Services, Business > Processes, Registry and Trading Partner Automation will be attractive to > business and industry - and just as important: why they're better than > what we have now - please share your ideas, and I will gather and > forward them to Beth Morrow of the M&A group. > > But the benefits of Core Components is a tough one to explain. In all > fairness, it's the most complex piece of ebXML. And its analog in > conventional EDI has been around and working for years - so CC has a > tough hurdle to jump. Sure, I know that modeling the data structures > might help the standards making process, but that's not a benefit that > will sell ebXML to the business community - only a small fraction of > that community actually participates in the standards-making process, as > they are mostly standards "consumers." We might even say that Core > Components will lead to an explosion of inexpensive off-the-shelf shrink > wrapped B2B software - but why? Why didn't EDI lead to inexpensive > off-the-shelf shrink wrapped B2B software? > > In short, why is it expected that the standards and products built upon > the CC specs will result in anything better than what we have today with > EDI? > > William J. Kammerer > FORESIGHT Corp. > 4950 Blazer Pkwy. > Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305 > +1 614 791-1600 > > Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/ > "accelerating time-to-trade" > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > "unsubscribe" in the body to: firstname.lastname@example.org >
Powered by eList eXpress LLC