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

[phogan@sinotechnologies.com]

David,

>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.

I am new to this committee, but have worked in this
area for over 25 years. Speaking from an Open Source
viewpoint, every executive I speak with has had it with
 run-away integration and IT costs and are staring to
focus on alternative approaches. My sense is that the
business community has begun to take more control over
such issues.  

It is not only Europe, but China that has begun pushing
for a holistic approach to such issues. They have
mobilized both their business and academic communities
to address it. The ebXML, SOA and Open Source work
being done at the university level in China is
extraordinary. The Chinese are focused on solutions
that work, low cost to adopt and maintain, are easy to
install and that can adapt quickly.  

I agree with one thing, the US will have a major
"wake-up"  call coming in the next year or so. I can
envision a future with half the world's population
(China and India) using the same platform and
standards. The other half (Europe and US), needs to
address this possibility very quickly.

Good article by the way.




On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:23:39 -0400, "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
> >

Patrick Hogan
CEO and President, Sino Technologies Corp.
(408)451-8428