RE: Comments on Vienna spec 0.56

["Welsh, David" <David.Welsh@nordstrom.com>]

hmmm .. but figure 2 as it is represents a whole real **business process**
as it is, that's used in the Internet e-tail and the catalog sales worlds,
where both are called a 'direct to consumer' (or in slang terms 'drop ship'
or I've heard 'customer direct') supply chain model. 

The **business process** has it's actors and roles and it's collaborations
and it's transactions and it's failure states and it's success states, all
of which are a must for the BP part of ebXML. 
If the POC is going to show "end-to-end" ebXML, which it must as Vienna it
the delivery date of all of ebXML, then it means all of the ebXML project
team's word deliverables get's roped into the POC and to meet ebXML's basic
purpose to exists we must start with a business process and end with a
business process.

So to the business process model in question in figure 2, it's not a sales
order business process and I can't see any product catalog exchange business
process going on :
- unless you count the Internet dotcom's web site is actually publishing a
catalog thru the website and then the business process (ie. buy/sell) is
about product selection and shopping baskets.
- unless you count on mass snail-mailings of product catalogs, and I don't
think that'd be a good idea to show in Vienna.

One of the complaints I heard in Tokyo about the execution of the business
process in the POC was the *business process* wasn't real enough *for a
business person*.

Nope, sorry Dimitri, I still don't see what the *business process* of
catalog exchanges would be that would be supportive of the differentiator
aspects of ebXML over somthing like say EDI which the most people in the
world today know.
Please explain.
Thanks
Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cherkassky, Dimitri [mailto:dimitri.cherkassky@commerceone.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 6:23 PM
> To: 'ebxml-poc@lists.ebxml.org'
> Subject: RE: Comments on Vienna spec 0.56
> 
> 
> I apologize that I was not more explicit in my comments. My 
> point is that we
> are planning to use product catalog exchange in the demo (p. 
> 18, steps 1 -
> 3), however this is not reflected in the Figures 2 and 3.  
> Instead, Figures
> 2 and 3 show an order entry scenario.  My recommendation is to updates
> Figures 2 and 3 to reflect what will be actually presented in Vienna.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Welsh, David [mailto:David.Welsh@nordstrom.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 6:14 PM
> To: Cherkassky, Dimitri; 'ebxml-poc@lists.ebxml.org'
> Subject: RE: Comments on Vienna spec 0.56
> 
> 
> Hi Dimitri,
> I still need to talk to Sig about filling in the BP details 
> but to your
> comments : 
> > pp. 9, 10.  Figures 2, 3.
> > The figures do not show Product Catalogue exchange.  The 
> > figures do show an
> > order entry scenario that I thought we were not doing.
> > 
> Trust me, in a real business world, figures 2 & 3 go way 
> beyond order entry.
> The pictures are meant to graphically show to essential 
> business elements of
> a real business where promising a customer, buying and 
> selling inventory
> with customer and vendor payments included and direct to 
> customer product
> delivery are all going on.
> 
> Now product catalog exchanges itself is a very interesting subject
> (especially for very large catalogs with 300,000 plus 
> products) where XML
> technology, especially for digital content, has many 
> descriptive advantages
> over traditional EDI business processes (but maybe isn't as 
> size efficient
> as old EDI). 
> What I was wondering was if you could sketch out the business 
> process case
> within which the activity of product catalog exchange might 
> be used, showing
> esssentially why ebXML is better than say EDI ?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Dave
> 
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-poc-request@lists.ebxml.org
>