[ebxml-dev] Harmonization, interop conferences, etc

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@mmiec.com>]

At 05:39 PM 6/11/02, you 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

Unlike some of our spinoffs and splinters, the official ebXML project has
never really had official representatives or people allocated as
'evangelists'.  This was true even in Phase I, before we were
reorganized into CEFACT and OASIS components.  Our core groups have
been more focused on versioning the  standards and paying attention
to user requirements.  

Perhaps, in this supercharged publicity environment for web services, it
is unfortunate that the ebXML work is heavier on technical activity, and
lighter on full-time professional conference jockeys.  If we were
marketing-centric, there are five or six such conferences we would be
plastering with Powerpoints every year.  

Then again, ISO, ANSI and IETF seem to have done OK without VPs of
sales.  I guess we'll just have to settle for broad alpha-testing
and harmonization commitments by the early adopter
users.    

Still, we recognize we could do better.  My fellow coordinating
committee member Apu Sengupta from Oracle has kindly (and bravely) agreed
to act as a catalyst for better organizing and coalescing ebXML public
information efforts.  Also, some of our people will be in Florida,
and Karl Best and his OASIS team are running part of it;  I'm sure
as our coalition partner they will say nice things about ebXML. 
There also is one invited speaker talking about something described as a
UBL implementation of a 'Distributed ebXML' system.   I have no
idea what it is -- it does not seem to be from any of the official ebXML
teams -- but we will be interested to hear what they have to
say.   

> ***
> 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. 

Todd, most of us share your frustration.  But to understand why
everyone doesn't just surrender to a single method, you need a puzzle
piece that seems missing from your analysis.   The success of
HTML, HTTP and SMTP, the increasing ubiquity of XML, and the attraction
of web services all are based on the promise of structurally
open, transparent methods that are relatively safe from vendor
lock-in.

The various standards efforts are competing for users and mindshare on
three axes:   not only quality (which many can claim)
and interoperability (which you note as important), but also trustworthy
neutrality.   In implementation decisions, I am
constantly asked by industry sources, "Who runs XYZ standard
group?  Who controls the IP?  Is this a safe standard to
adopt and spend money implementing?"   When customers say
"safe", they mean "am I going to get kidnapped by a
specific vendor or system requirement against my will?" 

A spectacularly complete and perfect B2B web services stack of standards
would still not meet most users' needs, if asymmetrically
aligned with one operating system, one collaborative
workflow or SCM product, one closed vendor coalition, or
etc.  

Control, ownership and level playing fields are important.  
Who gets to designate things as core or harmonized, and who
gets to define the minimum software requirements, are titanically important.   Ongoing struggles for control of these matters keep centrifugal force and a bit of megalomania in our environment.  

Recently the tide seems to be turning a bit.  On the centripetal side, a variety of data schema communities including Bolero, EAN-UCC, OAG, OTA and SWIFT are agreeing to normalize together with us.  My hope is we will also jawbone RosettaNet, UBL and a few others into that group.  Ultimately, the increasing  pressure from customers to coordinate may prevail.  Let's hope.  

Best regards  Jamie

~ James Bryce Clark 
~ VP and General Counsel, McLure-Moynihan Inc.   www.mmiec.com
~ Chair, ABA CLCC Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic Commerce   
~ www.abanet.org/buslaw/cyber/ecommerce/ecommerce.html
~ 1 818 597 9475   jamie.clark@mmiec.com   jbc@lawyer.com 
~ This message is neither legal advice nor a binding signature.  Ask me why.