RE: [ebxml-mktg] ebXML name

["Brian S. Hayes" <brian.hayes@UCLAlumni.net>]

The greatest contribution that ebXML has made to the electronic business
Standards efforts is its focus on *business* and the representation of
*business* in some machine processable format (hence the XML).
Marketing efforts need to focus on this.  The key Standards efforts in
this area are the OASIS ebXML CPPA, the UN/CEFACT eBTWG efforts such as
Core Components, BPSS, BCPMC and BCP, and the UN/CEFACT TMWG UMM effort.
I have not seen any other standards efforts address *business* in the
way that ebXML does.

Most, if not all, the other standards efforts that are taking the
lime-light away from ebXML are technical focus standards. 

Sincerely,
Brian Hayes
Collaborative Domain

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Tanton [mailto:atanton@oncecorp.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 6:35 AM
> To: 'Daniel Feygin '; 'ebxml-mktg@lists.ebxml.org '
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-mktg] ebXML name
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>