[ebxml-dev] Re: [EDI-L] Announce - Latest Article on ebXML

[Mike Rawlins <mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com>]

Thanks for the kind comments, William.  A few replies inserted below.

"William J. Kammerer" wrote <snipped>:

>
> If SOAP is not a
> direct competitor to ebXML MS, maybe W3C's nascent XML Protocol -
> described at http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/ -  could be.  In any event,
> something like ebXML Messaging services will be needed to provide the
> business messaging transport framework for the "digital dial tone" Mike
> mentions.  My alternate prediction is that either one or the other
> (ebXML MS or XML Protocol) will have a Gartneresque probability of
> achieving critical mass of .8.

Perhaps I generalize too much  in identifying SOAP with W3C's XML Protocol work, but
if you review the public work on the cited page you can certainly come away with that
impression.  I agree with William's assessment of .8 for one or the other, I just
think it's much more likely to be the W3C product.

>
> But there are lots of occasions for two known trading partners to want
> to automate mundane agreements.  For example, on the EDI-L list in just
> the last few weeks we've heard people asking what the ISA14 was for, and
> it ends up it has nothing to do with the X12 997 functional
> acknowledgement whose use depends on out-of-band Trading Partner
> agreement(s).  And we had the issue of the business response to a
> UN/EDIFACT INVOIC message: wouldn't it be nice if one could advertise
> (in the CPP) their ability to automate remittance advices, so their
> trading partners could automatically ask for one if they were capable of
> handling it?   The rough analog of all this - and more - is built into
> the ebXML CPP/CPA specification!  Mike gives the CPP/CPA spec a
> probability of achieving critical mass of .2;  I'll say it's closer to
> .5 or .6.

A few clarifications:  In the ebXMLBinding element there are rough analogues to the
ability to request a 997 or TA1.  However, the issue of a business response to the
INVOIC message is covered by the BPSS, which is only pointed to by the CPA/CPP and is
not an integral part of the CPA or the CPP.

>
> This is why
> Rachel and I have to sit in the corner all alone, wearing our dunce hats
> with gum on our noses.
>

Let me publicly go on the record here as saying that although I've seen both Rachel
and William sitting in corners alone, I have *never* seen them wearing dunce hats or
with gum on their noses!  (or did I miss that party?  You guys in RegRep must have had
a lot more fun than we did in Requirements...)

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