[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 ActionItem, et al)
Sorry Matt, you're right - but it's just the July heat. :) Matthew MacKenzie wrote: > > I agree that we want to be wary of the analyst camp, but this thread is getting combative. Guys, please simmer down. > > Thanks, > -Matt > On Jul 7, 2004, at 12:12 PM, David RR Webber wrote: > > 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 > > ___________________________ > Matthew MacKenzie > Senior Architect > IDBU Server Solutions > Adobe Systems Canada Inc. > http://www.adobe.com/products/server/ > mattm@adobe.com > +1 (506) 871.5409 -- Kind Regards, Joseph Chiusano Associate Booz | Allen | Hamilton
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]