At 01:40 PM 7/21/2004 +0200, Bryan Rasmussen wrote <snipped>: >Hey, in the report I'm writing I noted the concerns of Mike Rawlins >vis-a-vis interoperability but went on to make the following argument > >"interoperability issues have been vigorously addressed by the ebXML >community, via the OASIS Implementation, Interoperability and Conformance TC ><http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-iic/> , interoperability tests >are regularly conducted by the Drummond Group (recent results here: ><http://www.ebusinessready.org/pr_ebxml.html> ) the European >Interoperability ebXML - Pilot Project (located here ><http://www.cenorm.be/cenorm/businessdomains/businessdomains/isss/activit y/e >bxml_interop.asp> xml 2003 presentation abstract ><http://www.idealliance.org/papers/dx_xmle03/html/abstract/02-06-01.html> >), the search for interoperability in the ebxml community seems determined >by governmental and non-vendor organizations who have an interest in >assuring interoperability for all vendors, whereas in the Web Services >community, as exemplified by WS-1 one could argue that interoperability is >undermined by vendors comprising the standards organization, and thereby >using it as a political tool against competing vendors. " If you review the various issues I raised regarding interoperability, the initiatives you cite deal primarily with "common security" and "common data transfer protocol" and don't address the other areas. These work efforts are important and necessary and certainly represent progress, but they aren't sufficient. >which I don't know how others see it but standing outside it does look to me >that ebXML's search for interoperability is more serious than that of the >WS-1 group. I don't contest tour general observation about the web services community, I think you judge WS-I too harshly. I don't know the inside politics and motivations of WS-I, but from an outsider's viewpoint I don't see their efforts as being substantially different in their sphere from the ebXML efforts you cite. Your report will be more credible if you tone down your comments. >Then I make the following statement: >"Interoperability is further enhanced by relying on UBL for providing the >Common Expression, perhaps also Common Vocabulary. " That would be fine, if you could get everyone to agree on UBL as the common expression ;^) (and common semantics and vocabulary as well). However, that still leaves the hurdle of common business processes. Several vertical industries are well along their way in this area, but we still don't have a universally accepted cross-industry set of common business practices. Mike --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting www.rawlinsecconsulting.com Using XML with Legacy Business Applications (Addison-Wesley, 2003) www.awprofessional.com/titles/0321154940 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>>