Re: [ebxml-mktg] ebXML name

[gummi@dimonsoftware.com]

I agree with this, the name has had negative effects on many of
our customers, and cost us much work in convincing.

Regards,
Gummi Haf

------------------------------------------
Gudmundur Hafsteinsson - gummi@dimonsoftware.com
Dimon Software - www.dimonsoftware.com

"... 'cause that's what tiggers do the best!" - Tigger
------------------------------------------




|--------+----------------------->
|        |          Daniel Feygin|
|        |          <feygin@units|
|        |          pace.com>    |
|        |                       |
|        |          21.06.2002   |
|        |          09:14        |
|        |                       |
|--------+----------------------->
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                                             |
  |       To:     ebxml-mktg@lists.ebxml.org                                                                                                    |
  |       cc:                                                                                                                                   |
  |       Subject:     [ebxml-mktg] ebXML name                                                                                                  |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|




I believe ebXML's public perception problems begin with its name.  Those
wishing ebXML well need to realize that it is never too late to change it.
I would suggest something along the lines of WS-Business - that would be
the
name of the framework.  WS-Commerce can be used to refer to some subset of
ebXML specs.  The individual ebXML deliverables would then be called
something like WS-Business Repository, WS-Business Processes, WS-Business
Communications, WS-Business Agreements, WS-Business Language, etc.

My particular choice of WS-Business vs ebXML stems from the thinking -
whether appropriate or not - that e-business (at the core of ebXML) is an
irrelevant concept, since there is nothing special from a business
perspective about business processes that rely on computers and network
transport rather than on people and fax machines.  The WS prefix indicates
affinity to Web services technologies, which, following W3C's definition,
implies only a reliance on XML, which is also the logic behind ebXML's
current name.  "WS-" makes more obvious the complementary nature of ebXML
to
Web services and everything else represented by the "WS-" moniker.  From an
even more purely marketing-technical standpoint, whenever another
WS-Something spec comes out or whenever WS-I makes noise again, that might
translate into some publicity for ebXML.  Finally the more popular
Microsoft
makes its "WS-" efforts (7 at last count, so there is much potential
there),
the more receptive Microsoft's audience is going to be to ebXML.

In terms of making the transition go smoothly, perhaps the new name could
be
applied to the suite of approved 2.0 specs.  That would reflect the growing
maturity of the framework, minimize the negative impact of the name change,
and justify any required incompatibilities with previous spec versions.

Daniel