RE: [ebxml-mktg] ebXML name

[DMW <dmw@nwlink.com>]

Absolutely Rachel, and when we deliver the 'thing' that solves
**business** problems then I think we can start to show real bottom line
**business** value.

So far we've got RegRep and Messaging, all necessary foundation
technology. We're seeing BPSS starting to get a bit of traction but BPSS
isn't meant for analysis and modeling of new  business solutions towards
interoperability.

Really when one thinks about it, it's the BP / CC parts of ebXML which
are being "delivered" which **business** really needs to solve their
**business** problems.

-Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rachel Foerster [mailto:rachelf@ix.netcom.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 12:06 PM
> To: ebxml-mktg@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-mktg] ebXML name
> 
> 
> I'm not in favor of spending time, effort and resources to 
> change the name of ebXML to WS anything. What do we do when 
> the WS moniker loses cachet to the next new buzz word!
> 
> Rather, effort and focus should be on developing and 
> delivering to the appropriate target the **business** benefit 
> of ebXML and how it solves
> **business** problems.
> 
> Rachel Foerster
> Principal
> Rachel Foerster & Associates, Ltd.
> Professionals in EDI & Electronic Commerce
> 39432 North Avenue
> Beach Park, IL 60099
> Phone: 847-872-8070
> Fax: 847-872-6860
> http://www.rfa-edi.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexei Chirokikh [mailto:chiroka@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 8:42 AM
> To: ebxml-mktg@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-mktg] ebXML name
> 
> 
> 
> I think change of name will be just waste of resources. Even 
> we change it, the content will stay the same. I think we need 
> to concentrate our efforts on creating a strong business 
> emphasize of ebXML and promoting it. May be we need to 
> identify certain industry segments to start with and approach 
> those through participating in workshops/conferences 
> affiliated with those segments. I think ebXML is already 
> known as a brand name , we need to enrich and promote its 
> brand awareness within industries.
> 
> Regards, Alex
> 
> Alexei Chirokikh, Ph.D.
> e-Business Architect, IBM Global Services
> 1630 Long Pond Road
> Rochester, NY 14626
> Voice: 1.716.720.7534  T/L: 451.7534
> Cell: 1.716.509.4869
> chiroka@us.ibm.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                       Adam Tanton
>                       <atanton@oncecorp        To:       
> "'Daniel Feygin '"
> <feygin@unitspace.com>, "'ebxml-mktg@lists.ebxml.org
>                       .com>                     '"
> <ebxml-mktg@lists.ebxml.org>
>                                                cc:
>                       06/21/2002 09:35         Subject:  RE: 
> [ebxml-mktg]
> ebXML name
>                       AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>