RE: [ebxml-dev] RNIF vs ebXML

[Yvonne L'Abbe <yvonne.labbe@gridnode.com>]

Hi All --
Attached please find RosettaNet's latest information on ebXML position --
hope this helps ...

-----Original Message-----
From: nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com [mailto:nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 12:06 PM
To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: [ebxml-dev] RNIF vs ebXML


Hi

Actually there are activities toward adoption of various ebXML
technologies, including ebMS, CPPA, BPSS, ..., in RosettaNet. Most of
them are, however, investigation activities for the future (I may not be
100% right -- I can't see everything).

Someone (I thought he was a founder of Intel) said that in order for
some new technology to replace existing, already-adopted technology, it
must be at least 10 times better.

If ebMS were obviously 10 times better than RNIF (not in price --- RNIF
1.1 is a sunk-cost), RosettaNet trading partners would have already been
pushing RNIF 3. That is not happening (yet). I understand ebMS will
achieve lower cost in many aspects (I was part of ebXML phase I
activity, too). But apparently this is not well proven from the users'
perspective. It's still our turn to prove this.

It is sometimes difficult to find good values in ebMS other than
implementation cost. Since price only matters for the first or recurring
investment, lower implementation cost or lower product price is often
not good enough for users to adopt it.  I'd be very happy if someone can
guide me to good value analysis on this. IMHO real value of ebMS will
come from the synergy effect with other ebXML specs, especially in
regard to recurring cost. I want to see it really happen. It's worth
discussing, where we are in reality and where we should go.

How do you think?

Kenji Nagahashi

> RosttaNet members that frequent this site need to make their voice
heard by
> contacting Board members to push for RNIF 3.  The ROI in using RNIF 3
over 2
> would be more participation in both RosettaNet and ebXML initiatives
as a
> direct result of lower implement cost.
>
> Howard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eckenfels. Bernd [mailto:b.eckenfels@seeburger.de]
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 4:18 AM
> To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
> Cc: nagahashi@fla.fujitsu.com
> Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] RNIF vs ebXML
>
>
> Hello,
>
> >Yes, RosettaNet has announced that they are going to adopt ebMS in
> >future release of RNIF (=3.0). You can find ebXML's press release at:
> >
> >
>
> most of the RosettaNet users stick to RNIF1.1, RosettaNet itself is
> promoting and pushing 2.0 very heavyly. They even offer compatibility
> baging. To me it looks like nobody seriously is working on the ebXML
> transition at RosettaNet.
>
> Of course I can be wrong, as I do not have memebr insight. Perhaps
> anybody on the List is RosettaNet Champion?
>
> RosettaNets announcemnrt to migrate to ebXML is over a year old.
>
> Greetings
> Bernd
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>

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

Attachment: ebXML-position paper.doc
Description: MS-Word document