ebXML, EWG and X12 (was Re: WSFL, IBM, and WSDL)

[Brian Handspicker <bhandspicker@foliage.com>]

Folks,

Please forgive me if this is an already well-covered topic on the mailing
list.  I am new to the list and to ebXML.  However...

It sounds like we need a two phased approach to the definition of standard
business documents:

    1) Generic business documents (e.g. generic P.O. ala X12 850)
    2) Vertical specific agreements on using generic business documents
(e.g. Rosettanet PIP 3A)

On May 16, 2001 Mark Crawford gave a presentation to XML.Gov on "Electronic
Business XML" in which is asserted that "X12 and EWG have joined together to
extend ebXML core components work" with "All work <to> be done using ebXML
metamodel, evolving modeling methodology, and core components process". The
"focus is one functionally neutral and domain space core components, the
aggregates, and functional sets".  On another slide the presentation asserts
that "CEFACT Steering Group considering proposal to incorporate XML work as
part of EWG" and "Work would be based on xCBL" with "Work <leveraging> ebXML
core components effort".  "Work would result in international standards for
design rules, naming conventions, vocabulary, transactions."

These two proposals sound exciting and could provide the foundation that
many recent ebxml-dev participants have been requesting.  Can anyone provide
status or substance about these two proposals?  Given the naturally
deliberate pace of standards definition, are there any ground rules expected
(e.g. namespace mapping between xCBL and ebXML) that would allow developers
to get a jump on prototyping the potential standards (often a useful
exercise to avoiding spec'ing oneself into a corner... at least based on my
past experience with ECMA/ISO/IETF Distributed Print Standards and The
Palladium Print System project).

Brian

--
Brian D. Handspicker
Engineering Director
Foliage Software Systems, Inc.

bhandspicker@foliage.com
1-781-993-5500
www.foliage.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Abid Farooqui" <farooqui@tampabay.rr.com>
To: "Bob Haugen" <linkage@interaccess.com>; <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 4:20 AM
Subject: Re: WSFL, IBM, and WSDL


> Dear Bob,
> If you read the thread about WFSL completely you will realize that I was
> just answering someone's question about the differences between WSDL and
> WFSL and nothing really to do with ebxml.
>
> My other point about automating business document processing between
vastly
> different market verticals like high tech electronics and HR. The point I
am
> trying to make was that if a PO specification for electronics industry and
> HR for example is very different then implementation will be harder than
if
> they all followed the same standard for a PO. ebXML has pushed this to the
> verticals to decide for themselves which gives us the same kind of
scenario
> as with todays EDIFACT, X12 and the list goes on. I don't see any
> discussion, analysis or even an attempt to solve this in any paper.
> I will say though that ebXML documentation is too high level without
enough
> concrete examples and there is no logical order recommended to read it in
> (too many white papers that are not useful for development). Also some of
it
> seems to documentation for the sake of documentation. As a developer who
> wants to implement an ebxml server and who has not been involved in it for
> the last 18 or so months, I have not been able to find the head or the
tail
> for ebxml specification. There is no reference implementation or toolkit
> either which would help. High level specification is all dandy but the
proof
> is in the pudding. In this respect web services seem to be way ahead of
> ebxml even though there are some problems there that need to be addressed.
I
> do think that the documentation can be better organized, summarized and
> needs to be more to the point for developers. May be there needs to be a
> developer's guide that touches it all just enough for a developer to look
at
> and understand. Developers really don't need or care about the business
> case, white papers etc.
> Sincerely,
> Abid Farooqui
>