RE: [ebxml-mktg-sc] Briefing Paper on ebXML

["Margo, Todd" <Todd_Margo@stercomm.com>]

David,

Nice summary. Here are a few comments off the top of my head: 

1) I'd suggest not calling ebXML a "comprehensive system". It's not a
"system" per se; I prefer to characterize it (rather wordy I admit) as a
"scaleable standards-based e-commerce framework applicable to both small and
large businesses worldwide in all industries". I think "framework" is better
than "system". ebXML is the most advanced attempt at a comprehensive
framework. Rossetanet is arguably a framework, but has not had the vertical
industry scope of ebXML.

2) You make no mention of Rosettanet, and I think it might be good but I
don't know exactly where to mention it.

3) I suggest an alternative to the phrase "older EDI technology that has
been developed over the past twenty-five years" --> "existing EDI technology
in use now for more than 25 years". 

4) I think AS2 is now more than 6 years old. It might be worth mentioning
that. Also mentioning that it had comparatively limited scope as envisioned.
It was only intended to deal with secure transport of documents. It's
important to say that AS2 was never intended as a "framework". It is also
important to say that ebMS was designed in part by the same guys who
designed AS2 and ebMS was intended to overcome limitations of AS2 and
utilize newer low-level standards (like XML DSIG, SOAP, etc.). It's also
important to note that it took an industry behemoth (WalMart) to really
catapult interest in AS2. Its use was growing, but at a nominal pace prior
to last fall.

5) You say that AS2 does not provide digital signature. I am not sure what
you mean by that. Did you mean it does not provide "XML digital signature"?

6) One of the deficiencies of AS2 is that it does not provide (as part of
the specification) support for guaranteed delivery. You might want to note
that because ebMS does. I also don't think AS2 has any of the intermediary
routing capabilities of ebMS, does it?

7) You make a statement: "Ultimately of course end customers will gravitate
to a solution that provides a "one size fits all" approach so that they only
have to install and support one server system." I suggest a slight rephrase
as: "Because no one single B2B standard is winning out to the exclusion of
all others, organizations are increasingly investing in integration platform
software solutions that support multiple standards and abstract the
differences of functionally similar but disparate specifications."

8) I think it is misleading to characterize ebXML as the "right migration
path for legacy EDI systems." This might be true broadly speaking, but it's
important to combat the over-impression that ebXML "competes" with EDI.
Using words like "migration" doesn't help that. I'd suggest: "ebXML is
well-positioned to facilitate the evolution of legacy EDI into an Internet
and XML-centric world. EDI is not going away anytime soon, but parts of the
overall legacy EDI infrastructure are evolving to exploit the Internet and
XML technologies."

Todd

-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber - XML ebusiness [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 11:51 PM
To: ebXML Mkt Steering
Subject: [ebxml-mktg-sc] Briefing Paper on ebXML

Team,

Attached is my efforts so far on this - the MEGA group have
clearly made us aware of the need for such as document.

OK - over to the wordsmithing members of the team ; -)

Some of my sentences are - well - bolted together...

But I think the essence of this is probably close to 
where we need this to be for a first blush.

Thoughts, comments, edits, changes, etc?

Cheers, DW.