Re: AW: [ebxml-dev] RE: [EDI-L] Article on ebXML Core Components ...

[Todd Boyle <tboyle@rosehill.net>]

At 09:33 AM 4/23/02, bhaugen wrote:
>Todd,
>
>Don't you think you are describing the "S"
>component of SME?
>
>That is, small companies who only deal with
>other small companies and only domestically
>and then only with people they trust?

My assertion for a common horizontal vocabulary is
valid for any company with a compression of roles,
that has a human executing each sale and purchase,
and manually-guided decisionmaking in fulfillment
of its contracts.

My assertion is not dependent on being domestic or
on the level of trust. Manually guided sales happen
with zero trust, all the time.  If prepaid.  Purchases,
if obtainable on COD or on account.  In fact these are
great candidates for simple document exchange to
update the inventory count, the AR and the AP.

>What about small-to-medium-size companies
>who either sell to big companies or sell internationally
>or both?
>
>Or who need legally binding electronic contracts?
>Or some other "interesting" twist?

When Enterprise requires a particular software interaction
from their supply chain, let them eat cake.  They have
a business decision to make.  Is the purpose of ebXML
to create a standard way for Fortune 500 to dictate
their automation template on the SMEs?   I think not.

When ebXML provides SMEs with what SMEs' need,
they will install it.

Until then, the Fortune 500 might as well stick with EDI,
because its' quite likely their rollout of improved automation
will only be one battle at a time.   Oh, ebXML would be
more efficient maybe, but, it would still be one supplier
at a time.  The likelihood that any new supplier will have
an ebXML interface will be approximately the same as
the likelihood they have an EDI interface.   Because the
ebXML interface will only be found in Big-Small scenarios.

>Where are the market boundaries here, and
>what does each market segment need?
>(Or, conversely, how would you describe
>your "target SME company"? ....)

There are no boundaries.   ebXML must be *quite*
useful and helpful to individuals in their buying and
selling, as well as sole proprietors.   The middle
sized suppliers that serve F-500 needs automation
that reaches all their astronomically large universe
of workers, contractors and suppliers.   Obviously
they won't be excited about ebXML if it only
connects to their ONE or few biggest trading partners.

So the battle is really for hearts and minds of
individuals.

I think the ebXML community should be aware there is
a great need for uniform economic event notifications
in a broad variety of peer-to-peer automation, as well.
There has never been a widely adopted UEEN that can
be sent between routers or segments on the internet,
for example to provide microbillings.  Ther has never
been a microbilling for DRM.  I have worked on several
projects intended to provide many-to-many billing for
MP3s for example, that is a very attractive market for
a UEEN.

Many of the worlds' problems, tragedes of commons
etc. can be reduced by efficient markets.  Whenever
you see an economic asymmetry of benefit, there is
a need for a microbilling that is efficient.  There is NOT
a need for a micro-SETTLEMENT which is what the
banks constantly try to impose.  Here in ebXML for
example the Banking industry is extremely active in
defining metadata.

What is needed to achieve a coasian utopia of
efficient markets is an efficient "carbon copy" or
memorial of one party's understanding of the contract.
The choreography is the "Unilateral Submit". The
semantic content is the Amount, Date/time, the
two parties, who owes who, and the thing exchanged.

Todd
ARAP everywhere  www.arapxml.net
http://www.gldialtone.com/UEEN.htm