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] Microsoft Refuses to support ebXML


I would read the ebXML adoption document before you respond. It can be found
at  http://www.ebxml.org/ebxml_jmt/index.htm#documents. <Fraser> While most
of the industry is aligned behind SOAP, WSDL and UDDI, only Sun is
championing ebXML while Microsoft refuses to support it.</Fraser> I would
strongly caution against this statement. IMHO, the current market is way to
fragmented to make a blanket statement like this. I think that user
communities are behind ebXML and I would always put my money were the users

There are technical concerns being voiced against each of the technologies
that you have listed. SOAP, WSDL, UDDI are technologies that grew out a need
to extend portal services because vendors were losing money. I would agree
that most of the software industry's marketing dollars are behind SOAP,
WSDL, UDDI.  But just because you build it doesn't mean they will come. The
applications that are built still need to address the needs and concerns of
the users. Anecdote: the EDIers still have there jobs, while the dotcomers
lost theirs.

-----Original Message-----
From: Fraser Goffin [mailto:goffinf@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 9:03 AM
To: ebxml-dev@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: [ebxml-dev] Microsoft Refuses to support ebXML


sorry for the attention grabbing and slightly imflamatory title but it is
something that has been said to me a number of times over the past year or

I am currently involved in a major project whose objective is to provide a
very significant industry portal for accessing web services for a partical
market sector in the UK.

Part of the process is to define the web service interface specification
that will be used. In this context, ebXML MS (v2.0c) is one of the proposals
for message 'packaging'.

I have just received the latest specification which rules out the use of
ebXML MS (although I think the author is a bit confused about what
specifications he's referring to), and sites a number of grounds for this. I
have no particular issue with not using ebXML MS but I do have to admit to a
degree or irritation about some of the comments made.

There are many things that I could say about this particular section of the
document but I am somewhat sensitized to the particular debate and
personalities in this project and I need to be as objective and
dis-passionate as I can be (not easy). So, I would very much welcome
comments from you guys, since you have no special axe to grind about this
implementation per se.

I want to be sure about that any comments I do make are factually correct or
are based on sound assumptions. BTW - the text is quite short

I do have to respond very quickly to this (by 6th Jan !), so I would prefer
it if you would copy your comments directly to my email address please :-


Many thanks


--- Text from ebXML section follows (its quite short) :-

ebXML arose from the EDI community in an effort to reduce costs EDI by using
the Internet in place of expensive VANs.

ebXML is an international initiative established by UN/CEFACT (United
Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation) and OASIS (Organization for the
Advancement of Structured Information Standards).

ebXML is an open standard XML business specification that enables XML to be
used in a consistent manner for the exchange of all electronic business
data. The phase 1 spec was published in May 2001.  Late in the drafting
cycle, ebXML adopted SOAP + attachments as itís transport.

EbXML has a business process information model (BPIM) and uses UML and UMM
for process modelling.

The primary objective of ebXML is to lower the barrier to entry to
electronic business in order to facilitate trade, particularly with respect
to small businesses and developing nations.

The ebXML Transport Routing and Packaging specification released February
2002, provided support for SOAP 1.1.

There is huge overlap between the technologies used by ebXML and SOAP, WSDL
and UDDI.  However the goals of ebXML are more ambitious based as it is on
standardising business processes.  This may prove to be itís undoing as
companies tend to have different business processes and generally do not
change them without very good economic justification.

While most of the industry is aligned behind SOAP, WSDL and UDDI, only Sun
is championing ebXML while Microsoft refuses to support it.

There is considerable momentum behind the SOAP, WSDL, UDDI camp and new
standards are emerging all the time.  For instance Business Process
Execution Language for Web Services (BPEL4WS) specification was released
recently with the aim of replacing IBMís Web Services Flow Language (WSFL)
and Microsoftís XLANG.

Another view of ebXML is that it is a top down approach whereas SOAP is a
bottom up approach.  The consensus view seems to be that lightweight
approach adopted by SOAP is more likely to achieve critical mass across the
industry and that it will quickly add the superior features of ebXML.  SOAP
+ attachments is therefore the recommended approach for xxx.

The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months

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