RE: [ebxml-mktg] ebXML name

[Daniel Feygin <feygin@unitspace.com>]

I never proposed degrading the business benefit of ebXML and would like to
see its further development continue.  However I would also like more people
to become aware of how ebXML can solve their business problems.  My point is
that changing the name to something more meaningful to potential users would
be an effective way of increasing the awareness and vendor appeal.

I withdraw my proposal of a system of "WS" names in favor of the profile
idea presented by Apu, since that has apparently already been agreed upon in
Barcelona (no, I wasn't there).  A significant negative aspect of it though
is the risk of ebXML profiles being juxtaposed to WS-I profiles, raising the
perception of competitiveness and discontinuity between Web services and
ebXML.

Indeed ebXML appears competitive to at least one vendor-controlled WS
initiative - UDDI.  This is not to say ebXML is somehow incompatible with
the UDDI, but there is a crucial functional overlap between UDDI and ebXML
Reg/Rep, which happens to be in the area critically important to the vendors
behind it.  I believe vendor adoption of ebXML would accelerate if Reg/Rep
were more clearly positioned as complementary to UDDI and UDDI being
complementary to ebXML.  Without further technical alignment of ebXML to
UDDI, we can now emphasize the ability to discover ebXML R/Rs in UDDI
directories and in UDDI Business Registry in particular.

When UDDI is clearly declared to be complementary to ebXML, WS-I profiles
could become the basis for ebXML profiles (WS-I Basic includes XML Schema,
SOAP, WSDL, UDDI).  That would be the ultimate display of ebXML's
complementary relationship with Web services.  How about a major joint
announcement proclaiming ebXML's support for everything WS and WS-I
(including UDDI) and simultaneously establishing an ebXML profile based on
WS-I Basic?  The goal is, again, perception of continuity between Web
services and ebXML, the latter being positioned as an adaptation of Web
services technology to solve real-world business problems.

Best regards,
Daniel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rachel Foerster [mailto:rachelf@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 11:06 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>