Re: [ebxml-dev] ebMS TR&P and EDI-INT AS2

[bhaugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

From: Lund, Brad 
> Actually Bob it is more correct to say that " the next generation of
> RosettaNet may contain components of ebXML" instead of ebXML = RN.

I meant my statement metaphorically, and would have written 
those wiggly sort-of-equals signs ~~ instead of the straight ones.
But here are the actual correlations:

1. RosettaNet has announced that they will use ebXML MSH
and BPSS.  Participants in both ebXML follow-on projects
want this to happen and are taking the appropriate steps.

2. The UN/CEFACT Modeling Methodology metamodel and 
ebXML BPSS were both based and extended from previous
metamodel work for RosettaNet.  The BPSS Business Transaction
protocol is essentially the same as the RNet PIP protocol,
and any discrepancies are being resolved.

3. One or more of the key people in RosettaNet are working
heavily on ebXML CPAs, I assume because RNet intends
to do something with them.

So any differences between RosettaNet and ebXML 
are small now and will be smaller in the next generation.
I would claim (based on conversations with several
implementors) that if you know how to implement
RNet, you know how to implement most of ebXML.

That only leaves out Core Components and 
Repositories, which may converge as well.

So I think a much stronger statement can be justified
than "may contain components".

-Bob Haugen