RE: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came

["Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt)" <kkanaskie@lucent.com>]

Rachel, William and others,

I don't get it. I think the article was biased towards the "Internet
exchanges and e-businesses" perspective. It's like asking middleware
companies if there should be a single API for all ERP systems. Of course
they will say no, because it is their business to connect them all together.
Internet exchanges that can support more standards will have a greater value
add, I guess. I also think it is a bit short sited of the execs to not see
the light and work toward a common global standard. What advantage is there
in multiple implementations of the same thing?

I do understand the role of ebXML to provide a common "infrastructure" for
all XML messages. But why stop there. I would much rather see a single
common PO rather that 5 or 6 different versions of the same thing. That
starts to smell like the (dare I say) old EDI.  

I work in Lucent's CIO Strategy, Planning and Architecture group where we
now have to deal with a PO from OAG and RN. Sure, the immediate reaction is
to choose one as the Lucent standard and translate all others to it, but I
don't want that architecture to persist or to proliferate. It just adds
extra work.

IMHO, of course,

________________________________________________________________
Kurt Kanaskie
Lucent Technologies
kkanaskie@lucent.com
(610) 712-3096

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Rachel Foerster [mailto:rachelf@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent:	Thursday, June 01, 2000 11:57 AM
To:	'William J. Kammerer'; 'ebXML List'
Subject:	RE: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came

William,

I think you've got it....let's hope others get it too!

Rachel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ebxml@lists.oasis-open.org
> [mailto:owner-ebxml@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of William J.
> Kammerer
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 10:01 AM
> To: ebXML List
> Subject: Re: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came
> 
> 
> I was asked privately to expand on the snippet from "XML Gave 
> A War, But
> Nobody Came", (May 29, 2000), at
> http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?INW20000529S0046; i.e., "what
> is the [effect] of set standards for structure vs. [a] common, global
> standard for the language for XML/EDI?"
> 
>    Asked if they cared about which XML version will win, [nine
>    e-commerce executives at top Internet exchanges and e-businesses]
>    all shook their heads. They will fight to set standards for the
>    structure of XML documents in their respective industries, they
>    said, but not about setting a common, global standard for the
>    language.
> 
> On  first blush it would seem that setting a common, global 
> standard for
> the [XML] language is what we're trying to do in ebXML.   But we're
> really building a universal framework for XML business to business
> messaging.   In other words, ebXML recognizes the world 
> doesn't need yet
> another purchase order and we're not going to try to build one.
> 
> Instead, all the existing POs (and other messages) defined by the
> various industry initiatives can be transported, routed and 
> packaged by
> ebXML's TR&P, and reposed and registered by ebXML's RegRep.  And that
> includes "legacy" X12 and EDIFACT messages!
> 
> New messages can be built from ebXML's Core Components and arranged by
> ebXML's Business Processes.  With all this rich 
> infrastructure provided
> by the ebXML framework, even RosettaNet, xCBL and eCO can be subsumed
> into the Greater ebXML - the Grand Unified Framework.
> 
> Or something like that.  Don't ask me what I mean.
> 
> William J. Kammerer
> FORESIGHT Corp.
> 4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy.
> Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
> (614) 791-1600
> 
> Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
> "Commerce for a New World"
> 
>