Re: [ebxml-mktg] ebXML name

["ARIJIT.SENGUPTA" <ARIJIT.SENGUPTA@oracle.com>]

This is really interesting. Daniel, were you there at Barcelona? The ebXML JCC discussed this exact issue and came up with the following:

1. The ebXML spec names should not change as that would be confusing and lose quite a bit of brand value

2. The versions of the combination of specs and necessary infrastructure should be published as a profile. For example Profile 1 could be CPPA 2.0, Messaging 2.0, BPSS a, RegRep b, SOAP c, WSDL d, etc. This combination of interoperable specs could be used to create mission critical, industrial strength WebServices.

3. This profile could be branded as something along the lines of Business WS, Collaborative WS, ebWS, or anything else the marketing team come up with.

I think this would address your concerns adequately. I too have faced the perception problem of "ebXML must be yet another XML payload like cXML because it has XML!" This is stupid, but it is rampant.

Please let me know what you think. And please feel free to suggest names for this profile. I really like ebMS best at this point. What do others think? I would like to resolve this branding issue before we start doing outbound communications through Analyst briefings, journal articles, etc. Regards,

Apu

---

> 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

---