OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Re: [ebxml-dev] ebxml virtual appliance

Afterthought - wouldn't it help to establish a
default protocol profile - effectively a profile
profile :-) if one uses a CPP say to express it?
I.e. a default, generic CPP and maybe give it a
name. Hopefully NOT 'Small Business Profile' :-)
unless one was happy with calling the original
UBL subset the 'Small Business Subset' which
was needed by businesses not calling themselves
small businesses and therefore an unpopular
name. In Bryan's case maybe 'Northern European
Profile' NEP is a suitable name to go with NES
'Northern European Subset' but in Traxian's case
maybe SystML would publish some CPP like the
UBL subsets SystML1 and SystML2 :-) We got close
with Sacha's and mine's UBP 'Universal Business
Process' and maybe the need is for a 'Universal
Business Profile' (unfortunately can't be UBP
unless we call both together UBPP - Universal
Business Process and Profile). Maybe this is a
job for the ebCPPA TC instead or as well - but
is this software or a standard (open either way)?

All the best

Stephen Green
Bristol, UK

Quoting Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>:

> Just curious Roger: Does it use IM at all and do you think
> it important to major on a small variety of transport options
> (IM and/or FTP for example) to increase likelihood of matching
> capabilities between applications? Might this correspond to
> a need for maximum defaulting (initially with possibilities for
> customisation as secondary) to get a happy 'out-of-the-box'
> 'serendipity factor' (acknowledgments to GKH for the latter
> phrase for it)? These factors seem important for Bryan's
> topic (unless I've * completely * missed the point of it perhaps).
> Thanks
> Stephen Green
> On 19/03/07, Roger Bass <Roger@traxian.com> wrote:
>> Bryan, Matt, David et al,
>> I heartily agree with Matt's comments about ease of use being essential.
>> David and I are both involved offline in a project around Traxian's
>> offering, which I'd described to him as "Skype for B2B" (not that we'll
>> be trademarking that, obviously <g>). Traxian is a lightweight, uniform
>> client for integrating B2B seamlessly with popular applications like
>> QuickBooks - and which leverages hosted services to handle the
>> variability in different partner connections (i.e. format/protocol
>> translation, data aligment etc).
>> As some real-world background... our first product was a (fairly) pure
>> client-to-client model. Worked well in the lab... but in practice the
>> amount of tweaking and updating required on the client for each
>> end-to-end use case led to poor customer experiences and poor
>> supportability. Pure P2P implementations here can work fine
>> "out-of-the-box" where requirements and interfaces are well-defined and
>> stable - but we're a long way from that in the real world, especially
>> when SMB application integration (vs just file delivery) is a
>> requirement. Approaches that start with message delivery, and see app
>> integration as a "plug-in" will not work, in my view.
>> To your original question Bryan: the key requirement, I'd suggest, is
>> seamless end-to-end integration. Any technologies or standards that
>> relate to internal/B2B connections are fairly irrelevant from a user's
>> perspective, though they may matter for other reasons.
>> Regards,
>> Roger

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]