Re: XML Business Document Library Project Team

[Klaus-Dieter Naujok <knaujok@home.com>]

This email is send on behalf of Peter Wilson:

Klaus,

Please send this to Jon and to the list servers that he sent his 
original message to. I don't know him, my intention is to be 
constructive.

I think Jon, while he has many things to say, is out-of-date with 
much of his message. Jon describes the situation as he sees it in 
terms of three sets of polarised conditions: the EWG against the 
CSG; the top down versus the bottom up, and UN/CEFACT against 
OASIS. I do not recognise any of these polarised situations and do 
not find them to be helpful , as inevitably it leads people to see 
one 'side' as inherently good and the other as inherently bad. 
Rarely is life so simple. Taking each situation by turn...

Firstly, the CSG and the EWG had an extremely constructive session 
in Rotterdam and it was one of the best meetings that I have had 
the pleasure to attend. Both the CSG and the EWG agreed completely 
to the UN/CEFACT Vision of the future. Both CSG and the EWG agreed 
wholeheartedly to an open, transparent and constructive process for 
the way forward which includes taking input from all UN/CEFACT 
groups. Yes, the CSG made an error of judgement over the summer 
months by going faster than it ought, but who can honestly say that 
no group is innocent on this count? The CSG listened to the user 
community and acted accordingly by spending quite a considerable
amount of time reaching out and setting a consultative process in 
action. Jon may not know the years of business experience that CSG 
members have given to EWG and vice versa. It is not accurate or 
helpful to pitch one against the other.

Secondly, the future of e-business is not a case of bottom up versus
top-down. The future is about combining these two work efforts. 
That is why UN/CEFACT backs both the core component activity and 
the business modelling activity. It is equally disingenuous and 
erroneous to say that top down solutions have all of the answers as 
it is to say that the bottom up activity has all of the answers. 
Both need to be business led. Jon might not know but many of the 
domain groups in EWG are involved in top-down business process 
modelling as well as taking stock of implementation experience
learned from years of EDI. Myself and many of my CSG and EWG 
colleagues have been saying this in presentations for quite some 
time.

Thirdly, this is not a case of UN/CEFACT against OASIS. Both 
organisations learned much from the ebXML initiative and have much 
to benefit from a continued relationship. I understand a 
significant part of Jon's email to acknowledge that the UBL 
membership wanted to be part of the UN/CEFACT development arena. As 
a CSG member, I am fully supportive of this proposal, as indeed are 
many of my UN/CEFACT colleagues. If the UBL community want this to 
happen, and UN/CEFACT wants this to happen...what is standing in the
way?

There is no such thing in life as a blank cheque, so UN/CEFACT 
cannot work on the assumption that the xCBL input can be accepted 
without modification or scrupulous review. Which organisation would 
say that? 

What I can say as a CSG member - and I am sure that others will 
agree - that the work, if submitted to UN/CEFACT along with the 
necessary assistance from xCBL and UBL experts, will be considered 
as a significant contribution, openly and with professionalism.  I 
am sure it was not his intention, but I would invite Jon--instead 
of seeing polarised situations where they don't exist and where 
people may be tempted to drive a wedge--to work with us to
provide a single united business solution that brings the user 
community together. I will sign up to this. This is, after all, 
Objective One of Jon's stated aims.


Regards,

Peter

Peter Wilson
Director, Operations
e.centre 
10 Maltravers Street  London  WC2R 3BX
E.  peter.wilson@e-centre.org.uk