Re: [ebsoa] Scope of TC (was SOA and Shared Semantics / Editors Action Item, et al)

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Thanks David. I will interpret your answer as meaning:

(1) The current level of adoption of BCM and EPR in industry is low.
(2) The current level of adoption of BCM and EPR in the US federal space
is low;
(3) The current level of adoption of BCM and EPR by vendors is low.

All: We should VERY carefully consider how our TC will approach the
incorporation of initiatives for which the overall adoption by industry,
government, and vendors is very low. IOW, how well-equipped will we be
to encourage adoption of our work if it relies so heavily on shaky
foundations?

Joe

David RR Webber wrote:
> 
> 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
> >

-- 
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz | Allen | Hamilton