[ebxml-dev] RE: [EDI-L] Article on ebXML Core Components -posted forMary K Blantz -IONA Technologies

[Rachel Foerster <rachelf@ix.netcom.com>]

Quite frankly, if the work of CC is valid, solves problems of today and
tomorrow, and the marketplace accepts it, it will stand on its own. If it
doesn't, all the defensive comments from current/past co-chairs and other CC
work groups won't mean a thing.

It it's what the industry wants, needs and accepts, it doesn't need a
defense.

Rachel Foerster
Principal
Rachel Foerster & Associates, Ltd.
Professionals in EDI & Electronic Commerce
39432 North Avenue
Beach Park, IL 60099
Phone: 847-872-8070
Fax: 847-872-6860
http://www.rfa-edi.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com]
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 11:44 AM
To: edi-l; ebxml-dev; XML/EDI
Cc: Claus.Loos@iona.com; Blantz, Mary Kay; Melanie McCarthy
Subject: Re: [EDI-L] Article on ebXML Core Components -posted for Mary K
Blantz -IONA Technologies


It was definitely not my intention to prompt such lengthy and considered
responses from Ms. McCarthy and Ms. Blantz, both of whom hold current or
past leadership positions in the Core Components work.  I have great
respect for them and the work that they are doing, and I'm sure that
they have better things to do.

They both made their points quite well, and I don't see any reason for a
lengthy response.  I do wish to say though, that if anyone got the
impression from the article that I supposed that the work would
ultimately "be discarded", this is not what I was trying to convey.  I'm
not very confident about predicting the future in this regard, but as I
said in the closing paragraph I believe that some of the key concepts
are going to survive.

Though I disagree with McCarthy and Blantz on several things about the
CC work, overall I do still support it and will be offering comments on
the current public review draft of the ebTWG Core Components Technical
Specification.

Mike

Loos, Claus wrote:

>As a former Co-Chair of ebXML Core Components, a current member of two of
the ebXML Core Components Project Teams and the Chair of X12 Materials
Management, I feel compelled to respond to some of Mike's comments.  While
much of what he has said is true, I do not agree with his conclusions on
Core Components.
>
>It is likely that the Core Components project was the most ambitious of all
the ebXML efforts; which probably made it the most likely to fail, but also
the most likely to be of genuine global value.   The goal was the
development of syntax-neutral, reusable building blocks that would allow
interoperability no matter what syntax was being used.  This is an
incredible goal, and requires the support and participation of widely
diverse business and technical experts.
>
>Some EWG and X12 subcommittees have agreed to work jointly on both Core
Components and ultimately on the development of international XML documents.
Materials Management, for example, has made this decision.  This is
excellent news for all businesses that will implement XML for their
Materials Management processes.
>
>Our previous attempts to align X12 and EDIFACT were helpful, but it would
have been much better not to have two different syntaxes for the same
business processes in the first place.  It is very exciting that if we are
successful we will have one international XML standard message for any given
business process, and through the work of ebXML Business Process and Core
Components will be able to interoperate with the other syntaxes.  While this
does not preclude companies developing their own special customized
versions, it gives them the opportunity to align with the global standard
and reduce costs for themselves and their trading partners.
>
>The use of UIDs for Core Components, both Basic and Aggregate, is a key to
interoperability.  When this concept is presented to groups developing their
own XML, they greet this ability with enthusiasm and commitment.
>
>The new ebXML Core Components Supplemental Documents Project Team is
'proving' the validity of the ebXML Core Components Technical Specification,
while developing an end-to-end example based on an existing business
process.  While our group is already quite large, we would welcome
participation by additional business and technical experts.
>
>The results of our work will be used to
>* Recommend changes to the Technical Specification, if any are needed
>* Serve as a basis for the CC Primer, which will be used by teams all over
the world to discover Core Components
>
>I am sure that our Chair, Melanie McCarthy, would invite anyone to join our
list serve, participate in our conference calls, and attend our meetings.
The next meeting will be help May 20th to 24th, in Barcelona.
>
>
>
>
>For CCSD:
>Boeing and why chosen
>Ultimate goal to do ebXML BP and CC end-to-end example
>Detailed steps
>	Learned that the BP Worksheets need change and didn't help much
>	Learned that an accurate Class Diagram is critical
>Way we worked
>Team list
>List serve
>Spreadsheet
>Mention OAGI
>Conference Calls
>Next meeting
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: 	Mike Rawlins [mailto:mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com]
>Sent:	Tuesday, April 16, 2002 3:45 PM
>To:	edi-l; ebxml-dev; XML/EDI
>Subject:	[EDI-L] Article on ebXML Core Components
>
>I've just posted the next to last article in my series on ebXML - A
>Critical Analysis.  You may find "ebXML Core Components - the master
>data dictionary?" at the URL below.
>

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






------   XML/edi Group Discussion List   ------
Homepage =  http://www.XMLedi-Group.org

Unsubscribe =  send email to: xmledi-group-leave@disa.org
Leave the subject and body of the message blank

Questions/requests:  xmledi-group-owner@disa.org

To receive only one message per day (digest format)
send the following message to listserv@disa.org,
(leave the subject line blank)

digest xmledi-group your-email-address

To join the XML/edi Group complete the form located at:
http://www.xmledi-group.org/xmledigroup/mail1.htm