RE: Couple of thoughts

[Nicholas Kassem <nick.kassem@eng.sun.com>]

I agree with your pov Marc. I would like to see the August meeting 
establish a cross vendor foundation and for us to build on it for November. 
We have to figure out a way to pull in RR, BP etc. so the sooner we 
stabilize the base the quicker we can deal with RR etc.

Nick

At 10:41 AM 7/26/2000 -0400, Marc Breissinger wrote:
>All,
>
>I disagree.
>
>I believe the type of scenario that is described below is unscalable.  We
>will be (hopefully) continually adding new participants to the POC and demo
>environment through November as more vendors provide support.  The plan
>outlined below will require continual updates to the business scenario to
>incorporate each new vendor.
>
>I believe the any-to-any scenario solves that problem.  The basic 2-party
>PIP3A4 Create Purchase Order scenario is a real business scenario than can
>be presented in a well orchestrated manner at the closing plenary.
>
>Our aim should not be to build a one-off demo, but rather to build the
>appropriate, interoperable, ebXML TRP infrastructure that enables us to (1)
>prove the viability of ebXML for enabling dynamic trading networks and (2)
>dynamically create demonstration scenarios quickly and easily.  I think the
>any-to-any configuration is the best and most efficient way of accomplishing
>both of those goals.  It allows us to scale the environment to include new
>vendors (i.e., trading partners), thereby proving the ability of ebXML to
>handle dynamic relationships.  It allows us to demonstrate, if we desire,
>both a hub-spoke and point-to-point based relationships.  Finally, it
>enables us to create different kinds of demonstrations "on-the-fly" (albeit
>a somewhat risky proposition).
>
>In order to get there, a few of simple things need to happen:
>
>1.  Each vendor must declare what roles they will fulfill in the PIP3A4
>process: requester, receiver, req/rec, or hub (I believe only Viquity will
>play the hub role).

JavaSoftware will play the receiver role for now. We would like to do 
business with everyone :-)


>2.  Each vendor must declare what protocols they will support.  Allowing
>multiple protocols (a) follows the spirit of the ebXML TRP specification;
>(b) enables broader participation from the member base; and (c) provides a
>more compelling demonstration.

HTTP, SMTP(IMAP, POP)


>3.  Each vendor must publish the basic tpa connectivity information for
>communication (e.g., the URL for HTTP, email address for SMTP/POP/IMAP, path
>for FTP, etc.).  I suggest that, for simplicity, we leave security out of
>the mix for this demo.

Will forward shortly.


>4.  Each vendor is assigned a DUNS number for their role.
>
>Given that we don't really care about the payload it is not really required
>that we agree on the contents of the PO or the PO response.  However, it
>might be nice to have each of the requesters declare what data will be in
>the payload of the PO and what data they expect to receive in the
>ack/acceptance messages.  Given that, I don't think anyone ever considered
>doing any back-end integration for the San Jose demo.
>
>With that infrastructure in place, we can use the week in San Jose to craft
>the actual choreography of the demonstration scenario that will incorporate
>all who are able to participate.  It's certainly not a competition.  It's a
>matter of creating the most effective demonstration of the promise of a
>standardized TR&P framework.

Agreed.


>O.k.  I'm off the soapbox (for now).
>
>Thanks,
>marc
>
>==========================================================================
>Marc Breissinger                                   voice (W): 703-460-2504
>Director, Product Strategy - webMethods, Inc.      voice (C): 703-989-7689
>Email:  marcb@webmethods.com                               We're hiring!!!
>Email2: breissim@earthlink.net              URL: http://www.webmethods.com
>==========================================================================
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@vitria.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 12:00 AM
> > To: ebxml-poc@lists.ebxml.org
> > Subject: Couple of thoughts
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > Let me throw couple of thoughts into the mix.
> >
> > One thing good we did last time around was, use a well defined scenario
> > (Travel Profile Update) and associated roles and the roles were played
> > by individual companies. Turned out we played multiple roles in the end
> > but, the plan was to have a separate organization play a role. It was a
> > well defined and coordinated coherent demo.
> >
> > I am a little concerned with the anybody sending and receiving to anyone
> > approach. I think we need to be able to present a coherent demo, that
> > plays out a real business scenario in a well orchestrated manner, that
> > we can present at the closing plenary. With anyone sending to anyone and
> > people requiring to find their partner etc., I am worried that this
> > might come down to some sort of competition, like who can do with how
> > many different people etc. based on some private agreements.
> >
> > The proposal I made was trying to emulate an ebusiness supply-chain
> > scenario, incorporating a Hub at the center; a realistic and already
> > prevalent scenario IMHO. Attempting to ship RosettaNet PIP payload made
> > it a very powerful story for ebXML indeed. I agree very much that we
> > should be focussing on demonstrating ebXML  TR&P capabilities  and less
> > (probably not at all) on back-end and product
> > integrations/demonstrations.
> >
> > Hence I would like to request that we reconsider the anything goes
> > approach and work towards a business scenario that incorporates all
> > parties interested in participating.
> >
> > Regards, Prasad
> >