Re: [ebxml-dev] OMG/OASIS/HRXML etc. Interop Conference OrlandoJun27+28

[Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

I would like to state that I don;t believe ebXML belongs in this group
of ancronyms.

ebxML is not just a standard in the typical sense of the term.  ebXML is
an infrastructure that can facilitate interoperability between disparate
standards.  By harmonizing business information (in xml -> elements +
attributes) with the UN/CEFACT catalog of core components and making
such references via the UID mechanism, ebXML can offer semantic
translation between other standards.  At the higher level, the business
collaboration and process instances can help align what other standards
choreographies are, thus fostering this interoperability.

The ebXML v 1.04 arhcitecture was written based ont he assumption that
the world will never adopt and use only one standard, even within
industry verticals.  There are simply too many drivers affecting the
requirements for those standards.  Things like geo-political,
legislative, cultural drivers and influences all play an important part
in determining what the needs of business are and those needs constantly
change.

Duane Nickull

> "Hockemeyer, Gene" wrote:
> 
> The major problem ... thwarting XML .. ebXML .. or what ever
> 'proprietary'  acronym one wants to use .. is the word proprietary ...
> and  until these groups unify as with X12, UN/ECFACT, and other
> successful standards.. a set of workable  standards for this venture
> will never be established and uniformly used as a basis for data
> interchange.   The group does need to especially include active
> users...   as well as theorists, academies, and software peddlers.
> Otherwise, XML and its derivatives will, as stated below, a group of
> software packages ... failing to communicate with each other.
> 
> I know that in some cases I am preaching to the choir .. but .. for
> those others.
> 
> Best Regards ..
> 
> Gene Hockemeyer
> Senior Programmer
> Alcas Corporation
> 1116 East State Street
> Olean, New York  14760-0810
> (716) 372-3111 ext  3054
> ghockemeyer@alcas.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Boyle [mailto:tboyle@rosehill.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:11 PM
> To: Michael C. Rawlins; ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] OMG/OASIS/HRXML etc. Interop Conference
> Orlando
> Jun27+28
> 
> Mike - Thanks for your thoughts on this.
> 
>  > I don't think you have anything to be concerned about along these
> lines.
>  > As to actually converging and harmonizing the work of various
> bodies, it
>  > seems to me to be happening at less than a geological pace,
> 
> Well, the substance of the matter is unmistakable: There is a major
> interoperability effort in Orlando bringing together numerous
> standards
> bodies and vendors, and representatives of ebXML workgroups ought to
> be
> there.  The list of attendees was distributed at the December 2001
> Interop and it does show Karl Best and others from OASIS, as expected
> since they're a sponsor.  From ebXML workgroups however I only
> recognized Sue Probert, Duane Nickull and one or two minor figures
> like
> myself and John McClure.
> 
> ebXML workgroups should give and take, to align with other bodies.
> 
> There are other standards bodies working on the exact same tasks as
> every ebXML workgroup.  I read about the ebXML protocol stack but
> those
> layers have been addressed by dozens of specs. from IETF, W3C,
> ISO/IEC,
> ANSI, and literally countless others, not to mention the fact that
> open
> source projects are already available for any narrow task better,
> faster, cheaper (although hopelessly incompatible)
> 
> There is much to be gained by formal ontology of what subject matter
> we
> are working on, and arbitrating exactly WHO is going to deliver WHAT
> standard, and maybe even combining our work.  In my opinion, both the
> UN/CEFACT and OASIS halves of ebXML should seriously consider that
> idea.
> What is wrong with WS-I for example?
> http://xml.coverpages.org/ws-i.html
> http://www.ws-i.org/
> 
> Some of the Web Services vendors
> are actually co-sponsoring this year (see The Open Group)
> http://www.opengroup.org/  Which actually has a Customer Council!
> Yaay!
> http://www.opengroup.org/customer_council/rqts-jnl-pub.htm
> 
> I have heard numerous negative comments from ebXML workgroup members
> about the Microsoft/IBM and W3C/WS-I alignment.  Whatever is
> objectively wrong or closed about their work, Orlando would be a
> perfect place to expose those facts, and undermine market acceptance
> of proprietary solutions.
> 
> It make no sense to have major, international standards bodies working
> 
> in direct competition and not even attending the Summit to resolve
> whatever their differences are.  The result will be more decades
> of crummy rotten software that doesn't play with competing vendor
> software.   Or, a takeover by the dark side (such as the WTO)
> http://www.iec.ch/about/partners/agreements/wto-e.htm
> 
> Well Mike, you may feel that I don't "have anything to be concerned
> about along these lines".
> 
> Personally, I've watched most of my entire career in accounting wasted
> 
> in mechanical tasks, classification, taxes, and cleaning up messes all
> 
> of which could have been done by computers decades ago, if there
> were standards of interoperability.  I am pissed.  I am beyond pissed.
> 
> I don't want ebXML to succeed, frankly, if that results in 100 years
> of
> metric measures alongside english measures.  I don't even care if
> ebXML
> is better.  I want ebXML to converge with the other standards.
> 
> If more citizens paid a bit more attention to these self-appointed
> standards bodies and the consequences of their decisions, the country
> would be a better place.  I want all of these bodies to deliver
> something that allows individuals and small business to conduct
> business in a level playing field.
> 
> We need to find customers and suppliers, and conduct our orders and
> fulfillments and settlements with the necessary privacy and the
> security from fraud and intrusion enjoyed by giant corporations.
> 
>  >>happening at less than a geological pace..
> 
> By attending the conference you would see the mechanisms being
> discussed for convergence at more than a geological pace!  :-)
> 
> It was a great privilege at the last conference, to be able to
> directly
> ask the Mega-standards bodies, the "mother ships" of numerous
> individual
> standards like OMG and OASIS questions like, "How does your
> organization
> enforce your own standards to interoperate?" and "How can the
> information in metadata registries like ISO11179 and ebXML be
> harmonized
> with software objects in OMG's MDA and UML modeling?"
> 
> Executives of groups like ANSI, DISA, OMG, and OASIS today must
> compete
> for credibility, by explaining how they reconcile the work within
> their
> own organization.  As well as IETF, ISO, IEC, etc. and the UN/CEFACT,
> housing so many diverse standards!  These are nothing but companies,
> selling standards services to their members.  They should be held
> accountable for interoperability.  For example, OMG has its
> Architecture
> Board and OASIS has its TC process,
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/
> We have our ebXML Technical Architecture, and the W3C has Tim Berners
> Lee. :-)
> 
> Interoperability between organizations can hardly happen if Standards
> Bodies publish incompatible standards so, which do you believe:
> 
> *  a standard can't happen until market competition shows which
>     technologies are really the best, or,
> 
> *  standards have to be planned, because it is impossible to
>     implement changes after systems have already been installed and
> tuned
>     with proprietary technology, and you have to wait for the economic
> 
>     replacement cycle of the IT assets?
> 
> I think eBusiness has to be planned, and the period of experimentation
> 
> has been long enough for an eBusiness Version 1.0, and the only
> thing stopping progress is conflicting standard body behavior.  That's
> 
> just my opinion.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Todd
> 
> At 08:23 AM 6/12/02, Michael C. Rawlins wrote:
> >Mr. Boyle,
> >
> >I think you probably didn't see an official representative of ebXML
> at the
> >2001 conference, and won't see one at the next one, is due to the
> fact
> >that as of May 2001 ebXML ceased to exist as an organization.
> However,
> >UN/CEFACT and OASIS, who are continuing the ebXML work, are sponsors
> of
> >the conference.  I don't think you have anything to be concerned
> about
> >along these lines.  As to actually converging and harmonizing the
> work of
> >various bodies, it seems to me to be happening at less than a
> geological
> >pace, though I've not given up hope yet.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >At 05:39 PM 6/11/02 -0700, Todd Boyle wrote:
> >>I hope some official representative of ebXML, ebTWG, or UN/CEFACT
> >>is attending, among all these standards bodies, working to converge
> and
> >>harmonize their work? http://www.omg.org/interop/program.htm
> >>
> >>The 2001 page doesn't show ebXML http://www.omg.org/interop/
> >>but the meeting was really powerful.  There are still some
> >>powerpoints on the website from the 2001 Interop.   Gary Neal's
> >>powerpoint 2001, is dynamite
> >>http://www.omg.org/interop/program_2001.htm
> >>
> >>I did some comments on the 2001 mailing lists
> >>http://www.gldialtone.com/collab.htm
> >>
> >>Todd
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>

-- 
VP Strategic Relations,
Technologies Evangelist
XML Global Technologies
****************************
ebXML software downloads - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/