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

[Eija Aspelin <eija.aspelin@edimanagement.com>]

It has been very interesting to read all these e-mails about what is the
purpose of the CC group. Thing that I have found confusing is the discussion
about the messages.

To my understanding the basic idea behind the BP/CC group was to come up
with a set of core components that base on UML, that can be expanded to meet
different business needs and that can be re-used. Based on these components
the business can define the messages it needs to have in order to run a
business transaction. This was the new thing of ebXML that I found extremely
interesting, since this approach bases on the requirements coming from the
business side and realises the  business needs.

I have used the analogy of Lego cubes, ie. within EDIFACT you can buy a
ready-made Lego-house (eg. Purchase Order UNSM) from which you can extract
some of the cubes without the house falling apart (eg. MIGs). Within the
ebXML approach you could buy standardised Lego cubes (eg. CC's), from which
you can build a Lego-house (eg. PO for a specific line of business etc) that
fits your needs.

If the purpose with whatever group continuing the work after Vienna is to
define again a standard for one, huge, international PO then I think we are
just changing an apple to an apple. If the result was one standard
ebXML-based definition of PO, then the same procedure as with the current
EDIFACT messages would start again. You would have to define a MIG of this
PO for the companies wanting to implement it within their e-business
applications. Instead if the result was a comprehensive repository of
standardised core components and BP patterns, then an SME could easily
define its business process according to BPSS, define the document contents
and use the standardised CC's for defining the messages, register the BPSS,
messages etc and start the business. The result would be that the company
would get a business process and needed documents precisely meeting the
business needs but still based on standards.

Just my two cents (or marks here in Finland) ...

best regards,
Eija
**************************************************
Eija Aspelin
Oy EDI Management Finland Ltd
P.O. Box 166 (Sinikalliontie 10, 4th floor)
02631 Espoo, Finland
tel: +358-9-4391 0016
mobile: +358-400-601190
fax: +358-9-43910043

> -----Original Message-----
> From: andreas.schultz [mailto:andreas.schultz@cityweb.de]
> Sent: 26. huhtikuuta 2001 9:34
> To: ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: Re: What do people really expect from ebXML? - the Vision
> \"thing\"
>
>
>
>
> It is very surprising reading all this comments on \"common\"
> messages coming out of ebxml. First, like Arofan reported,
> there was a decision that ebXML will not create messages in
> the sense of transactions. This was a good decision. One good
> thing with the \"old\" stuff coming out of X12 and especially
> EWG that these are organisations which are seen as official
> and neutral standardisation bodies. If there is a need for
> new \"common\" and global messages, than they should come out
> under the umbrella of UN/CEFACT and there under EWG. If ebXML
> is doing this, it is just one more not in the same way
> official organisation who tries to come out with
> transactions. But this has nothing to do with standardisation
> as we understood this until now. No doubt, that things could
> be done better, and that with one of the goals of CC, to have
> a set of syntax independent, cross sectorial core components
> and sector specific extensions following the same rules,
> there are good chances to do that.!
>  But as I said this should be done by organisations who makes
> sure that this is done neutral and not software or software
> vendor dependent.
>
> ---
>