RE: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came

[mwsachs@us.ibm.com]

For me, the answer is some composite of what Rachel and Kurt said.

One reason that we have no common infrastructure in today's B2B world is
that there has been no unifying force and pockets of vendors  started
implementing what each saw as their requirements, sometimes using EDI
messaging and sometimes using custom-designed XML messaging.  ebXML has the
possibility of being the unifying infrastructure force going forward for
future applications.  A flexible run-time can support both ebXML-based
messaging and the existing application designs through the use of plug-ins
or equivalent customization aids.  tpaML provides the constructs necessary
for specifying what variants of the run-time are needed, what specific
message schemas are being used, and so forth, by a given pair of partners.

<SalesPitch>
    Anyone who wants to find out more about tpaML can get the spec and a
   white paper from xml.org/xmlorg_resources.  Anyone who wants to get into
   tpaML discussions is welcome to join ebXML@lists.oasis-open.org.
</SalesPitch>

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



"Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt)" <kkanaskie@lucent.com>@lists.oasis-open.org on
06/01/2000 01:49:09 PM

Sent by:  owner-ebxml@lists.oasis-open.org


To:   "'rachelf@ix.netcom.com'" <rachelf@ix.netcom.com>, "'William J.
      Kammerer'" <wkammerer@foresightcorp.com>, "'ebXML List'"
      <ebXML@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:
Subject:  RE: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came



Rachel,

I could use your rational against you (although, I wont), as in: if a
common
infrastructure/framework was achievable we would all be using one now. I
agree we should work on a common infrastructure/framework, but I am not
giving up on a common content model. However, I think it makes more sense
to
have the common infrastructure there first. We can use the information
gained from the numerous content standards to understand the requirements
for the infrastructure (Dig Sig, etc.). That way we know just what has to
go
into the content part.

I think part of the problem of not having a common PO for example is not
due
to differences in concepts, but differences in implementation and the lack
of extensibility. I think XML is the silver bullet in this case. If we can
define translations among the various incantations then we should be able
to
extract a common solution.

P.S. Every now and then I get time to read the interesting and stimulating
stuff on ebXML, it's a lot to keep up with, so pardon me if my responses
fall off without warning.

Kind regards,

________________________________________________________________
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 1:31 PM
To:  Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt); 'William J. Kammerer'; 'ebXML List'
Subject:  RE: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came

Kurt,

I don't have all the answers to the questions you posed below. However, my
perspective re trying to achieve a single, common global standard PO or any
other document is that it's just not achievable. If it were, everyone would
already be using one common PO, either the UN/EDIFACT one of the X12 850 or
some single common variant.

The mere fact that there are company-specific variants of both the
UN/EDIFACT messages and the X12 transaction sets PLUS all of the
proprietary
forms lead me to believe that having one common single format for any given
business document is a pipe dream at best....my bet is that each of us will
be able to fly to the moon in our individual space crafts before achieving
that holy grail.

Therefore, why not spend our collective efforts on developing a common
framework/infrastructure that will support interoperability of any and all
variants? That's much more achievable than developing a single common
document format and then getting the world to adopt it.

My two cents worth.....

Rachel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt) [mailto:kkanaskie@lucent.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 11:48 AM
> To: 'rachelf@ix.netcom.com'; 'William J. Kammerer'; 'ebXML List'
> Subject: RE: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came
>
>
> 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"
> >
> >