Re: VOTE REQUESTED - Suggest vote NO to Section 7 oftheTechnicalArchitecture Specification

[David Lyon <djlyon@one.net.au>]

Bob,

This is a difficult area, that I acknowledge.

Integration means different things to different people. To EDI developers it
has one conotation and to SME Managers they'll probably think you're talking
about racism.

So I understand the decision to step around 'intergration' from a technical
point of view.

The problem is, that to not even connect the points Trading Partner(s),
ebXML and Accounting System is not a completed circuit. To a simple person,
the design is not plausible.

An SME reader without an EDI background will have no idea what any of the
document is talking about if it doesn't even mention his Accounting system.

For as far as he/she is concerned, that's where all the computerisation of
the business takes place.

As this is a computer thing, the reader needs to know where this ebXML fits
into their business, as that is why they are reading the document.

The document needs to inform the reader that ebXML connects/is intended to
connect the Accounting systems between businesses.

The solution for them of course, is to discuss the ebXML requirement with
their Accounting system provider, and possibly purchase an upgrade (maybe
the whole system, who knows).

Of course, some Accounting system Vendors will be able to, and some not.

Both the Business Reader, and the Software Providers, need to be led
forward.

In large organisations, the integration may be a nightmare - require $30M
and 150 people. For a small firm, it may be as simple as clicking on
ftp://www.peachtree.com and downloading the ebXML module for $50.

Whatever it is, people need to know in what direction they will be going.

But they need to see that their car has wheels, before they will step in. I
mean everybody knows that cars have wheels, and likewise that businesses
have accounting systems. It's just taken for granted.

Take care

David Lyon

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>
To: 'David Lyon' <djlyon@one.net.au>; <ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 9:58 PM
Subject: RE: VOTE REQUESTED - Suggest vote NO to Section 7 of
theTechnicalArchitecture Specification


> David Lyon and all,
>
> Integration with internal business systems has been another feature
> that has been declared out-of-scope for ebXML from the beginning.
>
> I agree with David that this is vitally important and like him wish it
> had been in-scope, but ebXML had 18 months to get finished and
> I understand why the scope decision was made.  There are a lot
> of internal business systems out there, and a lot of ways to
> approach integration.  There have been proposals and ideas
> put forward on the ebXML lists.  Personally I like some and
> hate others.  It would have been yet another circular argument,
> and required yet another work group, probably composed of
> already-overworked people from this and other groups.
>
> I don't think it does any good to become indignant at this late date
> about scope decisions made a year and a half ago.
>
> -Bob Haugen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Lyon [SMTP:djlyon@one.net.au]
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 1:57 AM
> To: ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: VOTE REQUESTED - Suggest vote NO to Section 7 of the
TechnicalArchitecture Specification
>
> All members,
>
> I have been examining my copy of the technical Architecture specification.
I
> would suggest that a vote of NO should apply to this section.
>
> For the SME, this section is fundimentally flawed and will not work in any
> Small Business that I know of.
>
> Line 434 says "The implementation phase deals specifically with the
> procedures for creating an application of the ebXML infastructure"
>
> There is extensive descriptions following of registries, scenarios,
runtime
> phases etc... but there is nothing that I can find even showing how an SME
> connects it to their packaged accounting system.
>
> This is in my opinion, an extremely major flaw!
>
> I kindof understand the benefit of using a top down methodology, but in
this
> case it has led to a very grave design flaw.
>
> >From the ebXML homepage, I got the impression that what was being
designed
> was sortof like a volkswagon. A car for the masses that businesses all
over
> the world could use.
>
> The problem is that the designers so far have been concentrating so much
on
> a top down view of what they are designing, that they haven't bothered to
> have a look at the car from the side or underneeth.
>
> What has therefore been designed, from an implemention perspective, is
much
> like a car without wheels!
>
> It just won't go!
>
> Without connecting ebXML to the packaged accounting system so central to
the
> movement of every SME, what hat has been described so far, won't actually
> work.
>
> So it doesn't matter how much you rev the ebXML engine, it will never
> translate into forward motion for business. It will just sit there forever
> looking like a car, sounding like a car but incapable of leaving the
> driveway.
>
> I know that it's just a minor detail - but connecting the ebXML to the
> Accounting system is a fairly important one I would think.
>
> The TA document described thus far, if implemented the way it is read,
would
> not enable an SME to conduct business using ebXML. I just thought I'd
point
> that out, just a comment from somebody looking from the side.
>
> David Lyon
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org
>