OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-stc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: RE: Common Business Objects

I know the difference between the CC PT's core components and objects. I fully understand that objects include behaviors/methods as well as attributes. That was not the point I was making. I was specifically addressing your statement that the business community view objects as viruses....this just isn't so.
Furthermore, I do not perceive the discussion to be over common business objects, but rather one that is expressing concern that the ebXML proposed core components are NOT objects.
One answer to your question, What has to happen in order for this to be resolved? is to defer the current work effort in CC PT which is focusing on its concept of core components and instead identify, adopt, endorse or whatever existing common business objects that are already well known as the base starting point for the ebXML Framework so that we can complete the entire framework specification by the Vancouver meeting. After that, then move on to plowing new ground, but get the base foundation in place first.
Additionally, your comment The CC PT, which is made up of the largest concentration of Business experts represented in ebXML could be the CC PT's Achilles' heel in that there perhaps may not be a balanced viewpoint from the developer community regarding the viability, acceptability, and implementability of your innovative concept of core components. There is/could be a real danger of creating something so new that it will not be accepted by those who would actually have to use these constructs to create marketable solutions.
Food for thoughts.....
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa M. Shreve [mailto:lms@wwnet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 8:21 AM
To: Mary Kay Blantz; ebxml-stc
Subject: Re: Common Business Objects


I think you are missing the point here.  The CC PT, which is made up of the largest concentration of Business experts represented in ebXML, plus, significant representation from the vendor community [IBM, CommerceOne, Oracle, Sun, etc.], says that Core Components are not objects because they do not have behaviors. The project team has provided on a number of occasions descriptions about the truely innovative approach CC has taken to solving this difficult problem.

The business community in ebXML is becoming increasingly frustrated with the ebXML steering committee because they are not being heard.  They are not being listened to.

Industry and vendor lead initiatives, which continue to be started even today, are defining proprietary XML solutions which undermine the business communities ability to achieve interoperability.

This is to the detriment of the business community.

And the ebXML leadership continues to argue over Common Business Objects.

What has to happen in order for this to be resolved?


Lisa M. Shreve & Mary Kay Blantz, CC PT co-Leaders

Rachel Foerster wrote:

 Lisa,I don't agreement with this statement of yours: "In the eyes of the business community, receiving an object would be equivalent to receiving a virus.  Obviously, this would not be desirable!"Component architectures AND distributed object computing are clearly and unequivocably where IT is going - and it's picking up speed. XML provides a clear capability for an entity to contain nonparsed data (From XML V1.0: An unparsed entity is a resource whose contents may or may not be text, and if text, may not be XML. Each unparsed entity has an associated notation, identified by name. Beyond a requirement that an XML processor make the identifiers for the entity and notation available to the application, XML places no constraints on the contents of unparsed entities.) Thus, it is clear that the developers of XML intended to provide the capability for non-textual data to be conveyed. This would, of course, include objects and by extension, common business objects.In my opinion it would be a major omission if the ebXML Framework specifications did not include a common set of objects. I believe you are mistaken in your assumption that the business community assumes that all objects are viruses. For ebXML to proceed under this assumption would not be good, and is ultimately in conflict with the concept of distributed object computing. I can certainly envision the need to be able to use an XML document to contain an object that would interact with another object on the receiver's side. ebXML simply cannot afford to not enable this capability with its framework specification.Hopefully you and the CC PT members will recognize the value of this concept and modify your thinking to accommodate it.Rachel  
-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa M. Shreve [mailto:lms@wwnet.com]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 4:03 PM
To: Nieman, Scott
Cc: 'mblantz@LTVSteel.com'; ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Common Business Objects

Thank you for distributing the updated r&r document, I'm sure Mary Kay is pleased with your prompt response.

Frankly, I am stunned that it still contains references to common business objects!  We have been discussing this since May, and I thought that this had been resolved.  Apparently not.  Let me start with:

    It is the opinion of the Core Components Project Team, which consists of 60 members and is the largest project team in ebXML, that CBO's are not what we are producing. Core Components, referred sometimes to Smart Core Components, take on specific meanings, elements and refinements, based on Context [such as industry, geographic region, product type, etc.]  The sensitivity to context makes the Core Components smart.  Core Components do not have behaviors, which is why these are not objects.  In the eyes of the business community, receiving an object would be equivalent to receiving a virus.  Obviously, this would not be desirable!
Core Components are specifically designed to meet the PT's cross industry interoperability goals of Electronic Commerce.  These requirements are driving the need for the use of context and extension methodology, combined with the core.  This maximizes our opportunity for reuse, and supports the need for concise and semantically significant content.

With us now in the delivery phase, we cannot afford to continue to argue the PT's overall approach. We did an hour presentation in Brussels, we presented jointly with the BP project team at the San Jose closing plenary, we have answered this question on numerous occasions.  What steps do we need to take to bring closure to this issue?

Thank you,


Nieman, Scott wrote:

here you go:



-----Original Message-----
From: mblantz@LTVSteel.com [mailto:mblantz@LTVSteel.com]
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 1:08 PM
To: ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: UDDI, ebXML, and ecoFramework


Much as I would like you to have the last word, I must ask a question.

You indicated a knowledge of the R&R that is more than I know.  I trust you
have found the documentation somewhere.

Please share.

Mary Kay

Mike Rawlins <rawlins@metronet.com> on 09/08/2000 01:37:39 PM

Please respond to rawlins@metronet.com

To:   ebxml-stc <ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org>
cc:    (bcc: Mary K Blantz/CLGO/LTV)
Subject:  Re: UDDI, ebXML, and ecoFramework


Since only you and I seem to care much about this ;^), and we've both stated
opinions, I don't see much to be gained by continuing this dialogue.
I'm sure you'll agree with me that there's a big difference between the BP
metamodel using parts of the eCo framework, and ebXML adopting it wholesale
all of its interfaces, schemas, and implementation details.   Those are
the scope of the BP work.  They also don't fall within R&R, since R&R is
working on means to host any generic artifact, and not working on the
details of
the kinds of TP information needed for discovery.  The details of trading
partner discovery logically fall within the responsibility of the TP team,
that team has not yet even reached a consensus that trading partner
discovery is
within its scope.  In fact, the last time it was discussed the consensus was
that discovery was *not* within the team's scope.

So, there you have it.  You going to give me the last word???  Have a good


rik drummond wrote:

> since it specified layer i would say it means uses..... best regards, rik
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 12:07 PM
> To: ebxml-stc
> Subject: Re: UDDI, ebXML, and ecoFramework
> Thanks, Rik, but there are only two specific references to eCO in the BP
> metamodel document v2.
> They say:
> 126 -129
> 2. Markets and Parties
> This is the part of the model that allows organizations to register
> themselves relative to the markets they perform in and the types of
> they offer. This aligns with the first four of the seven layers of the eCO
> framework.
> 679 - 680 "an eCO style self-registration on your own site might be
> workable'"
> I assume that the first reference is the most significant.  I'm not
> enough with eCo or the BP work effort to know whether "aligns" means just
> "corresponds to" or "is based on".  In either case, I still think that
> making a generalization about planning to use eCo is still an
> rik drummond wrote:
> > mike the references are in the bp documents.... and were there before we
> > read them at the tmwg meeting.... rik
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 11:02 AM
> > To: ebxml-stc
> > Subject: re: UDDI, ebXML, and ecoFramework
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I appreciate Klaus' prompt action in addressing the issues UDDI raises
> > with his note yesterday.  However, I think that there's a
> > misrepresentation in that our plans for using the eCo Framework were
> > stated in a stronger fashion than they actually are.   To my knowledge,
> > no team has yet developed or approved at the team level even high level,
> > informal requirements for trading partner discovery, much less come out
> > with a firm position that we plan to use a specific approach such as
> > eCo.  It is certainly the opinion of several of us that ebXML will end
> > up specifying eCo, but giving the impression now that ebXML has already
> > made that decision is premature and inaccurate.  Such representations
> > can only have negative consequences, and I request that Klaus and the
> > rest of the Executive Committee be a little more careful in the future
> > with their statements about such technical matters.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
> > http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/
> --
> Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
> http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/

Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC