RE: [ebxml-dev] WS vs. ebXML poll - some facts

["Damodaran, Suresh" <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>]

I don't think the poll is doing anybody any good, except create some
sensationalism and press for those involved. Those of us who have seen
customers know that they have wisened up, and are not jumping to
implement the next big buzzword compliant technology. Today's' snazzy
technology
is tomorrows legacy if you don't use a standards framework.

To bolster the argument that ebXML is a framework that applies WS
technologies
to support B2B e-commerce, here are some pointers.

1. The ebXML Message Service Specification 2.0 (and 1.0) uses SOAP 1.1
specification and
SOAP with Attachments specification. What ebMS does is add security and
reliability to the use of SOAP in an interoperable way.

2. The ebXML Registry specification 2.0 contains WSDL specification for its
QueryManager and LifeCycleManager interfaces. These WSDL specifications can
be used to bind applications to access the ebXML Registry. These WSDL
descriptions may be published in a UDDI registry.
BTW, ebXML Registry is a registry and a repository, whereas UDDI is only a
registry. Both have
their uses, possibly complementary. If you want to store documents for your
business partners to pick up, you need ebXML Registry. To discover business
partners,
you may use UDDI, if that suits you. Some may find these registries useful
in different ways as well.

3. The ebXML CPPA (Collaboration Protocol Profile Agreement) has
demonstrated that WSDL specifications can be generated for a subset of CPP
[http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-cppa/documents/presentations/ind
ex.shtml] - see 4th F2f Web Services Zip File. 

4. The JCP (Java Community Process) has JSR (Java Specification Request) 157
[http://www.jcp.org/jsr/detail/157.jsp] for representing and manipulating
Collaboration Protocol Profiles and Agreements using ebXML CPPA
specification. 

There may be more that I am missing.


Cheers,

-Suresh
Sterling Commerce   



-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus-Dieter Naujok [mailto:knaujok@attglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 11:05 AM
To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] WS vs. ebXML poll


On 6/14/02 7:49 AM, "colin adam" wrote:

> That discussion highlighted for me the issue that some people may see
ebxml
> and web services in competition...
> ...Until today there has been no comments.

Could it be that this is not seen as competition as pointed out by Jamie and
others?

>I welcome everyone to come and make their opinions know in the
> comments section under that article once it is published.

Not knowing what your article will present, let me point you to an article
to be published in the July issue of Web Services Journal (pages 48-52)
titled "ebXML: The Missing Ingredient for Web Services?". Too bad I am not
able to submit the text to this group until it is published. The article
supports Jamie's view that ebXML is not in competition with WS. The main
points made in the article is that ebXML provides functionality to WS so
that they can be used for industrial-strength and mission-critical
applications. Let's not forget that the ebXML infrastructure set of
specifications provides the only "open, out-of-the-box, standards-based"
solution ready for use NOW! As Jamie said, it is not a question of ebXML vs.
WS but more along the line of ebXML vs. WS-I. How come that IBM and MS after
successfully convincing ebXML to adopt SOAP decided to start up yet another
effort with the same goals? When ebXML was created the term WS did not
exist, however, had it we most likely would have not called it ebXML but
ebWS. In other words ebXML is WS there is no competition. All those points
are part of my article. I encourage you to read it.

Regards,

Klaus 

-- 
Klaus-Dieter Naujok             UN/CEFACT/eBTWG & TMWG Chair


----------------------------------------------------------------
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>