RE: [Fwd: text/xml for SOAP (and XP) considered harmful]

[Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>]

Hi All,

	It is unfortunate to call ebXML "lame" and "Sun and a bunch of bureaucrats
backing it". If this is what bureaucrats do, more power to them ! We need
more of those "XML" bureaucrats ;-) (Sorry, I couldn't resist)

	Like Dick and others, I also participate in more than one XML initiatives
and talk about XML all over the world. Also, our motto is "No technology
religion" - which means the discipline to have objectivity when talking
about different technology "camps".

	I differ in the choice of words - "bureaucrats" and "lame". Let me explain.

	One of the ebXML goals I really like, is the REQUIREMENT for globalization
and SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises). May be the participation from UN
might have prompted the word  "bureaucrats". I think UN participation is a
plus. I have talked about ebXML in Japan/Hongkong/USA and UN participation
has helped us to evangelize ebXML. We all should be working towards
globalization - I urge all not to trivialize this aspect.

	Second, ebXML covers the whole spectrum of business from BP Modeling to run
time transport. It is no way a lame standard. I am not getting into the
BizTalk Vs ebXML debate, but just to say that both are being developed by
smart people and have merits. After the presidential election, we all should
know the benefits of bipartisan thinking.

	One of the unfortunate outcomes of this kind of reports is the fuelling of
"camps" Sun vs Microsoft, BizTalk vs ebXML, UDDI Vs regrep et al. This is
not at all healthy for the industry and will further fragment and confuse
the decision makers and the users. Comparing and contrasting the various
offerings, based on functionalities is a better way of differentiation.

	Will, if you want, we can meet and discuss this topic further. I do respect
your right to have a different opinion, but would appreciate a chance to
debate the issues.

	cheers


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Brooks [mailto:dick@8760.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 10:22 AM
> To: christopher ferris; ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org; XP-PUBLIC; Dick
> Brooks
> Cc: dale.kutnick@metagroup.com; howard.rubin@metagroup.com;
> Will.Zachman@metagroup.com; Aaron.Zornes@metagroup.com;
> larry.deboever@metagroup.com
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: text/xml for SOAP (and XP) considered harmful]
>
>
> An e-mail was recently sent to the ebXML transport and packaging
> group list
> server that referenced an article written by Mary Jo Foley, of ZDNet News
> and released on 12/12/2000. The article contained quotes from Meta Groups
> Will Zachman, which I believe deserve a response.
>
> Regarding Will Zacman's comments in,
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20001212/tc/microsoft_sun_in_new_c
> lash_1.htm
> l
> which reads:
>
>    "I think they (Microsoft) will have real traction with this product,"
> said
>    Meta Group vice president Will Zachman. "Microsoft's story on
> this (XML)
>    front is much more coherent than any other companies have to offer.
> ...The
>    only real alternative to BizTalk is, ebXML and it's lame. It's just Sun
>    and a bunch of bureaucrats backing it.
>
> One has to wonder what Mr. Zachman means by referring to ebXML as lame.
> It would be beneficial to those of us designing/developing/implementing
> ebXML to know precisely what areas of ebXML are "lame" in his opinion.  He
> seems to have some insight into ebXML that is NOT shared by other industry
> analysts, ref: recent notes from AMR and Gartner Group regarding ebXML
> (cited below). The term "lame" never appears in either Gartner
> Group nor AMR
> reports, however there are some facts which Gartner Group and AMR found in
> their research that Mr. Zachman either overlooked or was unaware of.
>
> FACT:
>
> ebXML's proof of concept this week in San Francisco involved the following
> vendors:
> Cisco, Fujistu, IBM, Interwoven, IPNet, Netfish Technologies, NTT
> Communications, Savvion, Sterling Commerce, Sun Microsystems,
> TIE, Viquity,
> and XMLSolutions.
>
> Editorial Comment: Note the broad industry support. This is hardly what I
> consider "a bunch of bureaucrats".
>
> FACT:
>
> In September of this year, members of the Global Commerce
> Initiative (GCI),
> representing 40 major manufacturers and eight trade associations,
> or 850,000
> companies worldwide, announced intent to use ebXML as the
> backbone for their
> new data exchange standard for B2B trade in the Consumer Goods industry.
>
> Editorial: Apparently the GCI consortium doesn't think ebXML is lame.
>
> FACT:
>
> Gartner Group's Healthcare division released a tactical guideline on
> 12/12/2000 that encourages companies to REQUIRE
> vendors to support EDIINT and ebXML in their RFP's ref:
>
> 1. Requirements for Completing the Digital Dial Tone, Technology,
> T-12-6803,
> W. Rishel, Research Note, 12 December 2000
> 2. Solutions to Complete the Digital Dial Tone, Tactical Guidelines,
> TG-12-6804, W. Rishel, Research Note, 12 December 2000
>
> FACT:
>
> AMR issued a research note with very positive overtones regarding ebXML's
> progress, ref:
> EBXML:  THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING
> http://www.amrresearch.com/ets/alerts/001213etsstory5.asp
>
> OBSERVATION:
>
> Mr. Zachman's "emotional" assessment of ebXML, calling it "lame",
> has had a
> pejorative affect on my opinion of Meta Group. I encourage Mr.
> Zachman/Meta
> Group to provide the ebXML TR&P group with a list of technical
> issues which
> cause him/Meta Group to hold this opinion.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dick Brooks (ebXML TR&P workgroup participant and ebXML's Liaison
> to W3C XML
> Protocol Activity)
> Group 8760
> 110 12th Street North
> Birmingham, AL 35203
> dick@8760.com
> 205-250-8053
> Fax: 205-250-8057
> http://www.8760.com/
>
> InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions
>
>