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

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Joe,

That is NOT what I'm saying at all.   I'm saying your metric is false and
misleading / worthless.

By your and Gartner's measure when Einstein wrote the formula for
E=MC squared - it would have got a negative rating - do not use - since
its adoption by everyone was low.

We're here to provide ground breaking work that sets new measures
for the industry - not kowtow to some vendor product set and
marketing criteria for VP of Sales.

If we are going to base what we are working on by what Gartner says
then we may as well give up now.

It's our task to create good work that leads to people adopting what
we are delivering.  Einstein understood that very clearly.

Thanks, DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
To: "'ebSOA'" <ebsoa@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [ebsoa] Scope of TC (was SOA and Shared Semantics / Editors
Action Item, et al)


> 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
>