Re: WSFL, IBM, and WSDL

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

Abid,

That's certainly one view.

Who has the (technical) client and who has the server is not going to be
obvious as it once was.

If a consultant (even an EDI consultant) does some work for a large company
and needs to bill. There's no reason why it can't be done from their PDA
directly back to the corporation straight away and via some wireless
mechanism like 3G or a net link. They could check their PDA to see if the
money had been paid.

In that case, who has the client and who has the server. Neither really
because they are both peers. This is how the future of business is more
likely to be.

Also, handheld technology only trails in power big computer room technology
by about 12 years. That means that anything that runs now in a computer room
will run in a portable version in about 12 years.

I remember working for a Value Added Network that once used MIPS computers.
At the time they were used to run trading accounts for thousands of
customers. Now, computers like that have less power than PDAs but they still
did the job.

Look at how Compaq was able to swallow Tandem; the once gem of non-stop
electronic commerce solutions.

So therefore, the processing power that a Plumber is going to have in his
van will one day surpass anything that any large company with hundreds of
thousands of clients has today. We've already seen it happen, and it won't
stop.

These days, a modern PC has a 40gig hard drive which is enough space to hold
the UDDI information for every company in the world. And that's what the
Small Enterprise can afford !

Instead of designing for the past, with ancient paradigms, we should be
designing software for what we can do with the computers for next year, with
their 80 gig drives. That's what the plumber will be upgrading to next.

Take care

David Lyon
ebXML Evangalist

----- Original Message -----
From: Abid Farooqui <farooqui@tampabay.rr.com>
To: <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: WSFL, IBM, and WSDL


> Wow ... six million dollar man, I think I know that show but I am going to
> leave it vague here lest I show my age :).
> I always envisioned making ebxml based platform that is client/server
based.
> Server resides with the big guy who hundread or thousands of trading
> partners where as the client resides on each one of his smaller trading
> partners who don't necessorily need a heavy weight server but would like
to
> do business with this and perhaps a couple of other big guys. The client
> side should be cheap (it has to be or there is no difference between this
> and EDI besides technology). Also expensive membership VAN pipes are not
> required.
> Abid Farooqui
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Lyon" <djlyon@one.net.au>
> To: <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:24 PM
> Subject: Re: WSFL, IBM, and WSDL
>
>
> Rémy,
>
> I'm very sure that low-cost applications will happen, for if it doesn't
> ebXML will be dead.
>
> This doesn't mean that the price of consulting will go down or that
high-end
> solutions will be any cheaper, but having a low entry cost to smaller
> participants for ebXML is extremely important.
>
> One of the biggest problems faced by EDI was cost. Not only cost of
> installation but the costs of operation.
>
> Now that hardware and software development costs have dropped so
> significantly since the days of EDI, it's about time that the same
happened
> with business messaging platforms like ebXML. Nobody does badly if the
size
> of the market for such products suddenly increases by a factor of say, 10.
>
> The true home of ebXML should be on the PDA or wristwatch where people can
> actually use the technology. Not in airconditioned computer rooms filled
> with techno-geeks.
>
> These days, most plumbers (in developed countries) can afford 3G access in
> their delivery vans.
>
> So why not make ebXML the software platform of choice for such people.
>
> As they used to say on the show 'The 6 Million dollar man', "We have the
> technology"
>
> David
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rémy Marchand <rm-edi@worldnet.fr>
> To: Abid Farooqui <farooqui@tampabay.rr.com>; Bob Haugen
> <linkage@interaccess.com>; <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 9:44 PM
> Subject: Re: WSFL, IBM, and WSDL
>
>
> > I totally support Abid.
> >
> > We need on the shelf and low cost solutions, even if they are
implementing
> > only a subset of the detailed implementations.
> >
> >
> > ----- 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
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Bob Haugen" <linkage@interaccess.com>
> > > To: "'Abid Farooqui'" <farooqui@tampabay.rr.com>;
> > > <ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 7:32 AM
> > > Subject: RE: WSFL, IBM, and WSDL
> > >
> > >
> > > > <Abid Farooqui> (collected from three messages)
> > > > Anyway, even if we go with the approach you suggest, let me ask
this.
> > > > How are you planning to automate business processes across vastly
> > > different
> > > > verticals without the kind of pain that is involved in doing so
today.
> > > > Because if we still have to go through all that kind of stuff, we
can
> > just
> > > > put ebXML and all other SME solutions on the shelf and just stick
with
> > how
> > > > things are today.
> > > >
> > > > Oh I also forgot to mention about WFSL ... it kind of also tells you
> in
> > > what
> > > > order to call different methods of a web service. If you have a
> shopping
> > > > cart service with methods like "getCart", "addItem", "checkOut" etc.
> It
> > > will
> > > > not make sense to try to checkOut before at least calling "getCart"
> > right?
> > > > These things are kind of missing from WSDL. Although they can be
> easily
> > > > added there. They did not have to come up with a new thing for all
the
> > > > features that are in WFSL. There is a very good article talking
about
> > some
> > > > problems within WSDL in the June/July issue of XML magazine
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.xmlmag.com/upload/free/features/xml/2001/06jun01/ab0103/ab0103.as
> > > p
> > > > </Abid Farooqui>
> > > >
> > > > Abid, which ebXML documents have you studied?
> > > > For example, have you studied the business process documents?
> > > > They're the ones with Business Process as the project team on page
> > > > http://www.ebxml.org/specs/index.htm
> > > >
> > > > The ebXML answers to the above problems and questions are in those
> > > > documents.  I'd be interested to know if your questions indicate
that
> > > > you have not read those documents, or you have read them but the
> > > > answers are presented too obscurely.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Bob Haugen
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
> > > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-dev-request@lists.ebxml.org
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-dev-request@lists.ebxml.org
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-dev-request@lists.ebxml.org
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-dev-request@lists.ebxml.org
>