Bryan: It is important to understand the philosophy of why this was done. When ebXML was architected, there was a decision to not repeat the mistakes of the past. One of the largest mistakes was to engineer a set XML vocabulary with the notion that the entire world will use it. That is flawed thinking from the start. The entire world will never use one set language. A wise man once said "When solving a problem you must not use the same type of thinking as when you created the problem" [1]. Think about it. Instead, ebXML wisely set about to define a set of flexible core components. The initial scope was to create the core components however the job turned out to be much tougher that perceived. Context played and important part and a lot of good thinking went into how we could represent that mechanism. I won't even get into the political derailment. We also needed other mechanisms like a content assembly device, context declaration, a modelling methodology to refine message metadata and sort out context values and more. The CC team wisely rescoped the work to defining the methodology for deriving core components and a set of extensible core component metadata as well as several terms like BIE, ABIE, BCC etc. In the 18 month timeframe, there was simply not enough bandwidth to complete the original scope. They did deliver some very new thinking on a subject that may one day give applications true cognitive capabilities ( a subject that has held up certain aspects of AI for years). Jon Bosak saw the shortcoming and realized that the world ready to try ebXML would need a language, not just a methodology since it's implementation in a fragmented and culturally diverse world would be very hard. Jon set up the UBL group to make the first language based on the methodologies and ideals of CCTS. Many of the original CCTS people participated and UBL is now available. I am a big fan of the CC work and the subsequent UBL work. Duane Nickull [1] Albert Einstein Bryan Rasmussen wrote: >In Mike Rawlin's article 'ebXML and Interoperability'( >http://www.rawlinsecconsulting.com/ebXML/ebXML3.html) he grades ebXML on >various aspects of interoperability. >One of the aspects was "Common Expression" defined as "Common set of XML >element names, attributes and common usage of those attributes, common >approach to document structure" - ebXML didn't address this at all. One of >the main reasons is that, as noted in my opening article, ebXML's strategy >was to enable several existing XML approaches to interoperate rather >choosing only one. It also tried to address a very broad scope, with >applicability to technologies other than XML." which he gave a grade of F. > >If we were to suppose ebxml as the framework and UBL as providing the common >set of xml element names etc. could we then change that grade to something >closer approaching an A? >This is based on my understanding of UBL, although not requiring ebXML, as >being designed to be ebXML compatible. If this is a misapprehension on my >part please point it out. Thanks. > >The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The >list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/ >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: ><http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/> > > > -- Senior Standards Strategist Adobe Systems, Inc. http://www.adobe.com The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/>
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>