[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebsoa] Scope of TC (was SOA and Shared Semantics / Editors Action Item, et al)
Joe, I'm sorry but this is a BAH / Gartner / Big 6 consulting style stock question. I'll turn this around the other way - I've just been looking at Gartner slides showing the cost of integration - running into millions and millions of $$$. These slides are dated 2001, and May 2002 respectively. Joe - how much longer do you think companies are going to continue to throw money against the wall before they start seriously looking at BCM and EPR and CAM? 1 year, 5 years, 10 years? Frankly their competitors that understand this and are actively doing pilot projects will be the ones that win here. I just got back from a seminal trip to Europe. There is a sea change happening. With 25 countries infrastructure to enable - they are no longer waiting for the USA multi-national / outsourcing / consulting circus to deliver its next iteration of "solutions" (note: since 2001 they've changed nothing). Some very bright people over in Europe "get it", because they are facing these problems daily - and they are of a mood and a moment to do something about it themselves - instead of reading interesting but useless analysis reports from Gartner et al. Our challenge here with ebSOA is actually to provide these people with a real solution that can deliver long term and short term what they need to empower next generation systems, their citizens and communities. My presentation : http://eprforum.org (top RHS) - attempts to point out how this is all fitting together. I'm not claiming this is perfect yet - but its a start. Obviously the next step is to produce formal requirements around the European needs and submit those and then tackle how ebSOA delivers them. This is a very serious effort - as Peter Brown indicated to the group already - and it will take us three months of hard work here to deliver this initial analysis. Perhaps you can suggest how the US may also "wake up" here - and begin to realize that the issues that say AIA, AIAG, eGov, eHealthcare, have known about since 2001 all have common roots - and that a new holistic approach is needed to provide at least some baseline progress? I'm not holding my breath on this one however. Cheers, DW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> Cc: "'ebSOA'" <ebsoa@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 8:50 AM Subject: Re: [ebsoa] Scope of TC (was SOA and Shared Semantics / Editors Action Item, et al) > David, > > How would you characterize the current level of adoption of BCM and EPR > both in industry and in the US federal space? This would include vendor > adoption as well. > > Joe > > David RR Webber wrote: > > > > Joe, > > > > I would further add to Peter's point - that ebXML is a living set > > of specifications that are evolving and improving to meet > > todays challenges. Therefore as Peter noted ebSOA's task > > is to describe the overall business functionality and components > > (in the same way that BCM has stated specific business needs) > > and then allow the individual TC's to show how their components > > actually support that and work in tandem using those perscribed > > facilitation mechanisms and what ebSOA provides for them. > > > > >From the BCM side - examples are 'Linking and Switching' > > services, and then as Peter noted - Semantic Dictionary > > Services. I'd add to this BPM systems. > > > > What is interesting about this is that BCM/EPR is combining > > back-office and front-office capabilities. The original ebXML > > work left forms and transformation on the table - while EPR > > is now addressing this in powerful new ways. > > > > This will all challenge the ebSOA work to think beyond > > the confines of today's simplistic "web services" or "ebXML" > > thinking - and to truely break new ground. > > > > Thanks, DW > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Peter F Brown" <peter@justbrown.net> > > To: "'ebSOA'" <ebsoa@lists.oasis-open.org> > > Cc: "'Chiusano Joseph'" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 11:24 AM > > Subject: [ebsoa] Scope of TC (was SOA and Shared Semantics / Editors Action > > Item, et al) > > > > > Dear ebSOA: > > > > > > A number of points strike me, looking back over the posts in the last few > > > days. I'd like to give my tuppence worth as someone trying to drive > > > implementation from a management and not a technology perspective... > > > > > > One of the great attractions of the ebXML - and particularly CCTS, RIM and > > > BPSS - has been its generic approach to solving a series of related > > > problems. It has been a breath of fresh air to those, like me, who warned > > > from early days that XML was not going to solve the world's semantics with > > > some carefully crafted Schema and tag names. The emphasis on syntax > > > neutrality in particular has allowed us to concentrate on defining > > semantics > > > upstream of any implementation, and yet have a rich, powerful, and > > reliable > > > framework to give developers/implementers, whatever the hell they build > > > with. > > > > > > Going beyond the SOA hype, I am certainly expecting something similar from > > > ebSOA, and the more I look at it, the more I realise that there are strong > > > echoes in the initiative that I have flagged up with the eGov TC and the > > > European standards body, CEN, that I christened "semantic interoperability > > > business implementation guidelines" (or SIBIG). Keep a focus on the > > generic, > > > high-level, *service-oriented* issues and let the technical specs follow > > > naturally... > > > > > > CCTS offers a standardised method to define business semantics. I would > > > expect ebSOA similarly to offer a standardised approach to: > > > - identifying semantic interoperability nodes, > > > - managing connections between these nodes on different systems, > > > - developing SOAs that promote this. > > > > > > Managing ontologies, the information sets that sustain them (incl metadata > > > stores/registries), and other association/assertion mechanisms (tuple > > > stores, Topic Maps, OWL, etc), would therefore seem to be entirely within > > > scope. > > > > > > On the down side, however, I'm not so happy with the emphasis on updating > > > the *technical* architecture of ebXML: this can only (and will) follow > > once > > > the semantics and service level stuff is properly addressed. > > > > > > To answer Jo's question: If someone did not - for whatever reason - > > > "subscribe" to the "ebXML way of doing things", the committee's output > > > *should* IMO be useful whatever: just as CCTS is very valuable even if you > > > don't buy into the rest (ebMS, BPSS, or UBL, etc). > > > > > > The value proposition is it's generic adoptability. > > > > > > Peter Brown > > > > > > Head of Information Resources Management > > > European Parliament > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > I am currently on sabbatical leave, and affiliation is given for > > information > > > purposes only. Any correspondence with my former service or the Parliament > > > should be addressed to gri@europarl.eu.it > > > > > > Author of "Information Architecture with XML", published by John Wiley & > > > Sons, see special offer at: www.XMLbyStealth.net > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Kind Regards, > Joseph Chiusano > Associate > Booz | Allen | Hamilton >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]