[ebxml-dev] ebXML has not failed

[Fraser Goffin <goffinf@hotmail.com>]

I encouraged that so many of you have taken the time to respond to the 
provaction that ebXML has not succeeded in terms of its initial mandate. 
Also that most believe with some conviction that ebXML has a bright future. 
This was exactly the kind of reaction I was hoping for.

My apologies to Mike for so paraphrasing his set of articles. However, for 
those who have read them, the inescapable tone is somewhat negative. That 
said, I for one prefer to not go around wearing rose tinted glasses, IT is a 
practical profession and one where everything will build (and sell) is 
basically flawed. I also note that the series has (at least) one more to go 
and that more encouraging noises to those of us who are new to the ebXML 
standards may come forth.

In terms of my own interpretation, I was partly put off, but particpating as 
I do in many other related discussion forums, it is remarkable how often 
questions and issues in other implementations could potentially be resolved 
by parts of the ebXML specs.

Let us also not forget that many significant technical decisions made in 
large organisations such as the one I work for, are not strongly based on 
technical issues. The more compelling case is very often made based on the 
commercial proposition and the mitigation of business risk. IT is a bit 
player here, how many of you have inherited 'golf course' IT strategy :-|. 
This means that we often have to be careful (selective) about the 
information that is propogated to senior management, and cautious about 
those who manage to gain 'their ear' often at the expense of 'rubbishing the 
opposition' (a pet hate of mine).

This is in part why mainstream vendor support is often crucial. Web based 
messaging capability will often be part of a broader technology offering. 
Thus from one perspective I am very happy with the forces behind and 
involved in the ebXML standards initiatives. This is clearly a powerful 
group that demands due consideration. Microsofts involvement is not 
essential, I simply identify that they like IBM, Sun and many other names 
that have been mentioned, also have influence. CGNU is predominantly an IBM 
shop, so I am happy to hear of their involvement and that of Oracle, Sun, et 
al.

I for one am also working hard to establish ebXML standards across the CGNU 
group. We have created our own implementation of the MS spec as part of a 
proof of concept exercise and are working actively with representatives from 
insurance services standards bodies as well as third party consumers of our 
services and our own software suppliers. So make no mistake, at present I am 
highly supportive. At this stage, this view is not based on the certain 
knowledge that ebXML will command an important position amongst various 
standards initatives, but more that most of us have to move more quickly 
(usually more than is desirable) in establishing our own service offerings 
with our own supply chains and other corporate partnerships. ebXML appears 
to represent a good set of standards to adopt, and in making this choice, we 
can at least progress our BUSINESS strategies rather than continue to 
pontificate and await a nirvana.

So, my apologies to those of you who viewed my provaction as ill judged. The 
basis was not invented, but rather sourced from not only written (reputable) 
texts but more often from our own contacts within most of the major vendors 
that were mentioned above and many others of greater or lesser import.

I hope to be an active particant in the ebXML dev list, so you will perhaps 
forgive my blunt approach.

Regards

Fraser.



_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx