RE: [ebxml-mktg] ebXML name

[Adam Tanton <atanton@oncecorp.com>]

I couldn't agree more that the name could use some work. However, are we to
far along the path to go changing the name(s) of the framework and then
necessarily names of the specs? ebXML hasn't gotten as much press as WS, but
it has gotten some.

One problem I have as a consultant trying to sell ebXML to my clients is
that because of the name they think it is just another markup language. And
how can you blame them? That's exactly what it sounds like.

I know as technical folks we like to think that it's the technology that
counts and the name doesn't really matter, but we all know it matters.

ebXML is:

a) not descriptive
b) misleading

Cheers,

Adam

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Feygin
To: ebxml-mktg@lists.ebxml.org
Sent: 6/21/02 5:14 AM
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