Re: [ebxml-dev] Discovery

[Mike Rawlins <mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com>]

Can we not discuss this without resorting to more hype, and being a bit more to
the point?

"Nieman, Scott" wrote <snipped> in response to William Kammerer's note:

> >>   This "discovery" crap sounds like e-marketplace hype which
> >>   only analysts and VC would swallow. If Ford wants to
> >>   "discover" a direct supplier, their own buyers and
> >>   engineers know where to look - they don't need ebXML.
>
> William, your examples are too typical of big business, which are
> unfortunately riddled with point to point integrations.  There are examples
> that could be placed at a consumer or retail level.  For example, what if
> William Kammerer wanted to buy a Peruvian sweater, and his Internet search
> found sweater that he could buy directly from a woman in Peru.  Instead of
> that woman getting 10 cents/ day to make the sweater, she is getting a
> reasonable sum of money directly from you using PayPal.

I think you need a better example, Scott.  The primary focus of ebXML is B2B, my
application to your application.  Your example is B2C, William sitting at a
browser to the Peruvian woman's web site.  Try again.

>
>
> This has been the vision of UN/CEFACT for ages, to help the emerging
> nations.  If it wasn't for the middleman and big business, we would not have
> sweatshops.  These thoughts also freak out the e-marketplace vendors.

(CEFACT has been around for ages?  It may seem that way to some of us, but I
think it has only been about 6 years or so in its current incarnation.)  Sure,
blame it all on middlemen and big businesses.  Just as the poor will always be
with us, I expect that sweatshops will always be with us.   e-marketplace
vendors are already so freaked out about their low stock prices that I don't
think any of this bothers them at all.  Can we stay on point?

>
>
> The vision of the ebXML Registry has been distributed, which means many
> things:

Yes, the vision has been distributed.  When will the specification support a
fully distributed registry?

>
> 1) every web site could have an ebXML registry - ideally part of the
> everyday plumbing (I am happy that apache is taking this on),
> 2) every web site/RA can control its own destiny - creates its own
> classification schemes, link its assets to nodes in other classification
> schemes, etc etc, to create a "web" of associations

OK, now instead of worrying about dealing with different EDI implementation
conventions, we're going to have to deal with everyone's different
classification schemes in their registries.  I think we're just moving the chaos
around a bit, and not fixing it.

>
> 3) distributed technology like peer-to-peer (P2P) popularized by Napster can
> relay searches to other ebXML Registries in the peer community (the
> distributed part still needs work, as P2P concepts need to be standardized
> - ideally in XMLP), and each registry can respond directly to the requestor,

So, ebXML Registry is not going to use the ebXML MHS anymore and will use the
XMLP???  Yes, I think there's quite a bit of work left to do here.

>
> 4) it eliminates the middleman - no brokers, no exchanges (sorry folks, that
> model will eventually be like the dinosaur)

Technology in and of itself will never eliminate the middleman - ask any produce
wholesaler.  In fact, some exchanges and brokers have been created by technology
because technology has made them practical.  Can we focus on some reasonable
benefits and not wild, unsubstantiated claims?

>
>
> As far as your example, your are correct that these point to point
> relationships exist, but they will exist for a long time.  But if I am a new
> vendor, and if I can associate my part I manufacture as a
> substitute/alternative to a specific node in an AIAG classification scheme
> (perhaps by a part number taxonomy), my part MAY come up in a search if the
> previous manufacturer is continuously late on shipments, and/or has a poor
> quality record.

Yes, and we have to acknowledge the fact that Ford, Chrysler, and GM use
different part numbering schemes.   It's a very nice vision, but as always the
devil is in the details.

>
>
> Discovery IS a good thing.

I fully agree, I just think there are practical limits (read ROI) to what we can
do with the technology today.

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