Re: [ebxml-dev] Gartner and ebXML

[David Lyon <djlyon@froggy.com.au>]

Hi Stephen,

Most of what you say is pretty right, except that most companies now
are becoming totally confused about what to do, if anything, with 
electronic commerce. Some of us were hoping that ebXML could
provide some sort of clear way forward.

However, the biggest problem with ebXML seems that it gives
the impression that it is a re-incarnation of X.400/X.500. I would
welcome education as to any significant benefits (on paper) that
ebXML might have over those old proposed standards.

This seems to be the thrust of what Gartner is saying; it's a big
monolithic thing with too many specifications and too few working
examples.

Many other (more) successful standards pick up working examples
and rebrand them as their own. ie, look at USB, and IE1394 (Firewire).
They represent a different philosophy of standardisation.

For ebXML to be a whole lot better, it just needs to focus on what
it's trying to achieve. What this is really some sort of console or
device that can be sold into any business that does e-business
functionality and requires no maintanence.

This is what ebXML should be about, producing a whole new
range of technologies that is scaleable from your Fortune 500
right down to an SME with a mobile phone.

Without this sort of dynamism, ebXML sounds unfortunately like
something that is designed for the old Tandem that sits rusting
(sadly) in the back room. That's not what people in the business
world are after. Anyway, their notebook has more grunt now
than the Tandem ever had. 

ebXML needs to "engage" and move into the new post 9/11
world which is going to go forward. 

Can we please move ebXML forward ?

Anyway,

Best Regards

David Lyon
GTD Technologies 
Sydney Australia

On Thursday 12 September 2002 01:50 am, Vinoski, Stephen wrote:
> Mike, the W3C definition is intentionally loose. Getting that particular
> definition agreed by (most of) the W3C Web Services Architecture Working
> Group agreed took quite a long time. Some would like to make it even more
> general than it already is.
>
> Your criticism that some services are available only via IP address and
> port and not via a URL is odd. Are you saying that no protocol whatsoever
> is used to access such services? Giving you the benefit of the doubt and
> assuming not, then you can write a URL in the following form to access any
> such service: protocol://address:port/.
>
> If you have services accessible via Kermit running over telnet -- your
> example, not mine -- why would they not be valid web services? Are you
> implying that Web Services are accessible only via SOAP over HTTP?
>
> UDDI is not necessary for Web Services. UDDI is just one of many mechanisms
> for discovery. A sender merely needs a way to discover how to contact the
> receiver. It could do this for example by prompting for a URI if it had to
> -- no UDDI needed.
>
> I'm a firm believer that criticism should always be accompanied by
> proposals for improvement. Please share with us your definition of web
> services, and explain why your definition is better than what the W3C is
> currently using.
>
> --steve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael C. Rawlins [mailto:mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 10:21 AM
> > To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
> > Subject: RE: [ebxml-dev] Gartner and ebXML
> >
> >
> > Thank you very much, but I wouldn't fault Gartner.  This
> > definition has all
> > the marks of being a fairly low value, greatest common denominator
> > consensus definition that was the best that competing interests could
> > hammer out in committee.  What's wrong with it?  Here goes:
> >
> > It is so general as to cover almost anything using XML on the
> > internet in
> > almost any fashion.  There has been a debate in the community
> > about whether
> > or not "web services" really has anything to do with the web,
> > since some
> > web service resources are only accessible via IP address and
> > port number
> > and not via a URL, URLs being the hyperlinked essence of the current
> > Web.  W3C neatly punted on this issue by saying that the
> > application can be
> > identified by a URI, which of course can be a URL which
> > points to something
> > or a URN which is only a name.
> >
> > How about "capable of being defined, described, and discovered by XML
> > artifacts" - I can describe nearly anything using an
> > appropriate XML based
> > language.   Being "discovered" by an XML artifact is somewhat of a
> > nonsequiter.  How does an instance document do discovery?
> > Can a schema or
> > stylesheet do discovery?
> >
> > Let's look at "internet-based" protocols.  Does Kermit run
> > over a telnet
> > session classify as an internet based protocol?
> >
> > The commonly held definition promoted in the trade press equates Web
> > Services with XML, SOAP, and UDDI.  That's still pretty
> > fuzzy, but more
> > specific than this blurb that covers only one of the three.
> >
> > Sorry, but I don't find even the W3C very enlightening in
> > this area.  I'm
> > usually not a big defender of Gartner, but don't beat up on
> > them for this!
> >
> > (Isn't it nice to know that Mike can rag on about something
> > other than ebXML?)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > At 12:35 PM 9/10/02 -0700, Peter Kacandes wrote:
> > >Its funny that Gartner likes to talk about standards, but is
> >
> > clueless when it
> >
> > >comes to the standard definition of a web service:
> > >  | Definition: A Web service is a software application
> >
> > identified by a URI,
> >
> > >  | whose interfaces and binding are capable of being
> >
> > defined, described and
> >
> > >  | discovered by XML artifacts and supports direct
> >
> > interactions with other
> >
> > >  | software applications using XML based messages via internet-based
> > >  | protocols
> > >  |
> > >  | http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-wsa-reqs-20020429#N100CB
> > >
> > >regards
> > >
> > >pk
> > >
> > > >Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:20:00 -0500
> > > >From: Brian Repko <brian_repko@hotmail.com>
> > > >Subject: RE: [ebxml-dev] Gartner and ebXML
> > > >X-Originating-IP: [198.212.99.114]
> > > >To: steve.capell@redwahoo.com, ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
> > > >MIME-version: 1.0
> > > >List-Owner: <mailto:ebxml-dev-help@lists.ebxml.org>
> > > >List-Post: <mailto:ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org>
> > > >List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>,
> > >
> > ><mailto:ebxml-dev-request@lists.ebxml.org?body=subscribe>
> > >
> > > >List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>,
> > >
> > ><mailto:ebxml-dev-request@lists.ebxml.org?body=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > >List-Archive: <http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/>
> > > >List-Help: <http://lists.ebxml.org/elists/admin.shtml>,
> > >
> > ><mailto:ebxml-dev-request@lists.ebxml.org?body=help>
> > >
> > > >List-Id: <ebxml-dev.lists.ebxml.org>
> > > >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Sep 2002 16:20:01.0406 (UTC)
> > >
> > >FILETIME=[E9DC01E0:01C258E5]
> > >
> > > >Steve,
> > > >
> > > >Thanks for the selected excerpts.  However, in looking again
> > > >through the material, there are lots of discussions on B2B
> > > >scenarios for web services and again, ebXML does not come
> > > >up.  I did find a reference to ebMS but that was the only
> > > >part of ebXML that came up.  That reference is in a presentation
> > > >(A7 for those that have it too!) by Jess Thompson and Wes Rishel
> > > >that discusses  standardization of semantics and never mentions
> > > >Core Components (and yes, I realize that that is not *technically*
> > > >a part of ebXML).  It is in fact comparing RosettaNet PIPs
> > > >against BPMI (ignoring external vs internal workflow) and never
> > > >mentions BPSS.  It discusses UDDI (with caution) but never
> > > >mentions RegRep.
> > > >
> > > >For it's part it clearly supports ebMS...but it stops there
> > > >and never mentions other parts of the framework when their
> > > >direct counterparts and solution space is being addressed.
> > > >
> > > >It is also a bit upsetting that in a seminar with 29 presentations
> > > >on application integration, that not one describes the ebXML
> > > >framework - OSI comparison or not - Gartner should at
> >
> > least describe
> >
> > > >the business problems that ebXML was designed to solve.  Perhaps
> > > >that is how it gets marketed.
> > > >
> > > >My .02 USD
> > > >
> > > >Brian
> > > >
> > > >_________________________________________________________________
> > > >MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> > > >http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >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>
> > >
> > >Peter Kacandes
> > >
> > >Sr. Product Manager, Java XML APIs      phone number:   408
> >
> > 276 7139, X17139
> >
> > >Java Software Products                  email:
> >
> > peter.kacandes@sun.com
> >
> > >----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >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>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
> > www.rawlinsecconsulting.com
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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>