RE: Re: [ebxml-mktg] RE: [ebxml-dev] Gartner and ebXML - distribu tionof the article

["Hickman, Michael (GXS)" <Michael.Hickman@gxs.ge.com>]

Title: RE: Re: [ebxml-mktg] RE: [ebxml-dev] Gartner and ebXML - distribution of the article

"I agree completely with David that the ebXML set of specifications is modular enough and open enough to be vastly more accessible to SMEs and small-scale EDI users..."

Who says that "openness" and "modularity" make *anything* more accessible to anyone, let alone SMEs?

Nothing I've seen about ebXML makes it more accessible than any other technology. What will make this technology accessible is when vendors package the technology into an easy to use product that doesn't require a huge staff or specialized technical skills to run, and allows companies to quickly get integrated with their trading partners.

-----Original Message-----
From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@mmiec.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:01 PM
To: ebxml-mktg@lists.ebxml.org; ebtwg-stc@lists.ebtwg.org
Subject: Fwd: Re: [ebxml-mktg] RE: [ebxml-dev] Gartner and ebXML -
distribution of the article

FYI

>Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:02:30 -0800
>To: David RR Webber - XMLGlobal <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>, Steve Capell
><steve.capell@redwahoo.com>, rachelF@ix.netcom.com
>From: James Bryce Clark <jbc@lawyer.com>
>Subject: Re: [ebxml-mktg] RE: [ebxml-dev] Gartner and ebXML - distribution
>of the article
>
>At 07:12 PM 9/10/02, David RR Webber - XMLGlobal wrote:
>>Rachel,
>>I must pick up on this.  ***
>>I have been tirelessly working from day-one in ebXML and  before to
>>ensure that we have technology that is able to be deployed into
>>environments with limited technical
>>resources and without the need for complex tools. ***
>
>I agree completely with David that the ebXML set of specifications is
>modular enough and open enough to be vastly more accessible to SMEs and
>small-scale EDI users than anything else in prospect from Web Services,
>choreography, EAI , etc.  And deliberately so.  I am absolutely confident
>of the fit between SME needs and ebXML architecture.  But I'm an insider,
>so convincing *me* isn't the point, eh?
>
>We have been so busy cooking the soup that we haven't written the menu, or
>put a sign up that says "restaurant".   Rachel's concern is based in
>fact:  as a community we have not yet created explanations and simple
>demonstrations that show SMEs that our work is easy, within reach, and a
>better fit for their needs than market-portal-driven top-down
>solutions.   Frankly if the world stock and software markets hadn't
>imploded, I think more companies would have taken this ball and run with
>it.   Unfortunately we issued 1.0 right into a economic black hole and
>there have been rolling layoffs ever since.  So the task of making it user
>friendly and obvious is back to us.
>
>>So I take issue with the assertion that ebXML is not SME friendly. ***
>>People should not confuse robust and comprehensive standard
>>specifications with difficulty of use.  ***
>
>Some of 'our' artifacts such as the STAR Pathfinder DRRW mentions, and the
>BPA worksheets, are HIGHLY user friendly and SME compatible.  But they
>haven't been widely demonstrated.  Again, our bad.   David, do you think
>STAR can be coaxed into web-based road shows or screen shots of some
>kind?  I'll inquire about the worksheets.
>
>Regards  Jamie