Re: [ebxml-mktg-sc] FW: WebServices.Org - The Web Services IndustryPortal - New XML e-business model s

[Monica Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>]

Mark,
I would suggest this may be an appropriate discussion item for the 
eBusiness Standards Convergence group that met in May 2003.  They have 
been able to amass X12, UN/CEFACT, OASIS, RosettaNet and other industry 
or national players including X12.  I also would like Robert Miller to 
explain what he means about OASIS addressing semantic ontologies, unless 
he is referencing the ontolog-forum loosely aligned with UBL.  The 
overlap and redundancy in some of the X12 efforts have been noted and 
will be discussed in the eBSC forum in early September 2003.

Thanks.

Yader, Mark (GXS) wrote:

> David, et al:
>
> Just curious....what's your response to Bob's summary of CICA.......
>
> Mark
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> *From:  * Miller, Robert (GXS) 
> *Sent:  * Tuesday, August 12, 2003 3:16 PM
> *Subject:       * RE: WebServices.Org - The Web Services Industry 
> Portal - New XML e-business model s
>
> Mark,
>
> _CICA enhances semantic understanding currently not well addressed in 
> the evolving UN/CEFACT specifications related to document assembly._  
> I know UN/CEFACT will review this work, but I don't know if they will 
> integratet its principles into theri ongoing work effort.  Articles 
> such as this one certainly improve the chances UN/CEFACT will pay 
> serious attention to this work.
>
> Would that it did all that the article suggests it does, but much of 
> the article speaks of a detailed level of semantic knowledge which 
> neither X12 nor DISA as addressed from a data collection and storage 
> viewpoint.  That's not to say these bodies won't eventually reach that 
> level of sophistication.  There is an effort underway in OASIS, for 
> example, to apply ontologic methodology to the data units that make up 
> a business transaction, and so provide a means to capture detailed 
> semantic information in an systematic manner, and to organize the 
> information in a manner that aids both document and application 
> implementation.  Think of the Dewey Decimal system for organizing 
> library books, and of encyclopedias for providing an organized set of 
> information on a given subject.
>
> As I previously mentioned in an earlier Email, there is an ongoing 
> controversy both inside and outside the X12 body about the 
> appropriateness of the X12 effort, given the ongoing work in 
> UN/CEFACT.  I am quite convinced that the end result of the X12 effort 
> will not be a separate, UN/CEFACT incompatible X12 standard for XML 
> messages.  Rather, I believe that X12 will achieve its need to more 
> closely control semantic content of messages witin the evolving 
> UN/CEFACT architecture, and will in time adopt that architecture as 
> the standard.    
>
> Some of the work X12 is currently undertaking, especially as relates 
> to XML syntax to represent messages designed using the new 
> architectural principles, seems unlikely to my mind of gaining 
> significant support.  Of course, syntax is where the rubber meets the 
> road, and understandably, businesses don't want to pay for multiple 
> sets of tires.
>
> As you well know, some companies already use XML to exchange business 
> data, though none of these exchanges could be considered standard 
> conformant, since such standards have yet to be defined.  I would 
> expect where such usage is among larger groups that these groups will 
> find opportunities to achieve conformance with international standards. 
>
> I observe that, as difficult as it is to define data mapping into and 
> out of  in-house operations within the traditional EDI syntax may be, 
> the introduction of XML syntax will, espcially in the short term, make 
> matters worse.   For example, the temptation to 'extend' common 
> transactions to suit specific company needs will not face the reality 
> of a standard EDI transaction set that doesn't support such an 
> extension.  It is 'easier' to mutually agree to extend a schema to 
> meet  perceived (or real) business needs than to go through a formal 
> standards-based process to meet that need.  Over time the cumulative 
> effect of such informal extensions could lead to a return of chos to 
> eBusiness transactions.
>
> Befroe closing, I would like to observe that many existing X12 and 
> UN/CEFACT transaction sets are already well designed, are meeting 
> business needs, adn are more cost efective to produce and transmit 
> than would be any XML replacement.  I therefore expect traditonal EDI 
> volume will continue to increase over the next several years.  Whether 
> the volume transported via VANs will increase or decrease, and what 
> value added services will rise or fall in improtance I am unable to 
> predict with any certainty. I do expect that their will arise within 
> the EDI Translation umbrella a need to perform endpoint conversions of 
> EDI formatted data into and out of XML formatted data (or at least 
> into and out of  XML interpretor interface format) used to exchange 
> data with XML-savvy application programs (e.g., with XSLT, XFORMS, 
> etc.).  It would be impractical to reproduce these versatile tools to 
> interface directly with EDI syntax, since they are generic XML-based 
> tools  designed to interoperate with modern, highly complex, personal 
> computer operating environments.
>
> Cheers,
>              Bob
>
>       -----Original Message-----
>       *From:  * Yader, Mark (GXS)
>       *Sent:  * Tuesday, August 12, 2003 1:11 PM
>       *To:    * Miller, Robert (GXS); McNeal, Karen (GXS)
>       *Cc:    * Eck, Jeffery (GXS); @GXS ISESDR
>       *Subject:       * WebServices.Org - The Web Services Industry
>       Portal - New XML e-business model s
>
>        << File: WebServices.Org - The Web Services Industry Portal -
>       New XML e-business model seeks to break semantic
>       interoperability barriers.htm >>
>
>       Bob, Karen:
>
>       What's your opinion ? Do you think CICA will be taken seriously
>       ? If so, when does GXS have to worry about it?
>
>       Mark
>