Re: What do people really expect from ebXML? - the Vision "thing"

[Mike Rawlins <mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com>]

Since William is fairly free in quoting me, I would like to clarify my
comments a bit.  I *do* believe that the best chance for continuing the CC
work of ebXML is in the joint EWG/X12 collaboration.  I also believe that
collaboration to be the best candidate, at present, for producing the
standard messages that Mr. Lyons seeks.  However, this is probably yet
another issue of semantics, but I don't see that work effort as a *direct*
successor to ebXML.  Also, the ebXML sponsors have still not announced their
proposals what comes after Vienna.  Given that, and attempting to be
realistic about the ways of the world, I think it is unknown whether or not
the environment after Vienna will be one in which the EWG/X12 collaboration
will prosper.  I am hopeful in that regard, but I'm going to wait and see.

"William J. Kammerer" wrote:

> Mike Rawlins is correct when he says ebXML never promised "to deliver
> transactions (standard schemas, DTDs)."   But I'm surprised Mike thinks
> "it is highly unlikely that it is something that ebXML or a *direct*
> successor will do."  If we actually had the "syntax-neutral" core
> components promised by ebXML - the "soul" of transactions and messages -
> it would probably be merely a hop, skip and a jump to actual XML schemas
> and DTDs.

--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com