OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-dev message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

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

Title: RE: [ebxml-dev] OMG/OASIS/HRXML etc. Interop Conference Orlando Jun27+28
>> until these groups unify as with X12, UN/ECFACT
I'd like to believe I'm part of the "choir" to which you are preaching. I support your
statement -- but what are the concrete groups need to take to unify? 
As others have mentioned, participants in the December summit went through a
an elaborate, structured facilitation that filled the wall of a rather large
ballroom with pages from a flip chart on which we listed impediments to
interoperability. While a lot of problems were mentioned, the concensus finding
was that "not invented here" was the major impediment.
This sounds like a rather intractable problem.  Wouldn't we have been a lot luckier
had the number one problem been something as simple as reconciling
differing XML schema design best practices?  ;->  If there is a solution for
"not invented here," regular inter-group communications on neutral ground have
got to figure into it. This is simply common sense. I know we all have a lot of
meetings to go to, but I believe the multi-lateral Interoperability Summits (the
next one being June 27-28) are a series of meetings all standards groups should
attend. There's a lot of work to do. If standards groups are serious about
getting beyond "not invented here" there's no substitute for taking a few days
each year to talk to one another on neutral turf.
Best Regards,
Chuck Allen
Director, HR-XML Consortium, Inc.
 -----Original Message-----
From: Hockemeyer, Gene [mailto:GHockemeyer@alcas.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:36 PM
To: 'Todd Boyle'; Michael C. Rawlins; ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: [ebxml-dev] OMG/OASIS/HRXML etc. Interop Conference Orlando Jun27+28

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

-----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

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?

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!

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)

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.


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.
>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
>>I did some comments on the 2001 mailing lists

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>

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC