Re: [regrep] V3.0 of ebXML for SOA

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

Duane,

As with all these items - its the input BEFORE that counts too - 
in making sure whatever transpires is most effectively leveraging
our limited resources.

I'd like to see OASIS and the Board themselves giving us 
guidance too.  It needs to be thought through carefully - not
just a - great lets setup a committee!

As with any undertaking - careful planning up front makes
all the difference downstream - the best answer may not
be the first move you look at.

Cheers, DW.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>
To: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: [regrep] V3.0 of ebXML for SOA


> David:
> 
> Great - so we can count on your input to the group then?? (If and when 
> approved)
> 
> Duane
> 
> David RR Webber wrote:
> 
> > Duane raised some interesting points that I'd like to
> > focus on - in regard to - creating a new 3.0 release of
> > ebXML.
> >  
> > My biggest departure point is around the single
> > issue of a perscribed architecture as opposed to
> > a suggested architecture.
> >  
> > I believe that trying to force certain technology
> > components down peoples throats as "you must
> > have this to be ebXML compliant" is a serious
> > mistake - and especially in the area of payloads.
> >  
> > One of the reasons payloads were never perscribed
> > is exactly that.
> >  
> > The great strength of ebXML is that you can eat just
> > the pieces you need.
> >  
> > Next up - Registry and CAM components offer a
> > phased approach - that is based on sound business ROI
> > to discreet problems - around information alignment and
> > interoperablity.
> >  
> > Now - if people discover they really can save money and
> > work more efficiently by using your technology - you will
> > not have to force them to use it - they will come to it
> > themselves - and that's essential longterm.
> >  
> > So - again - its comes back to - articulating where those
> > ROI factors are - from a business-centric view - and that
> > is what we need to spend our effort on IMHO.
> >  
> > As for the SOA fit - yes - we do need to make sure that
> > SOA literature includes ebXML components as options
> > there - and so again - the value proposition needs to be
> > made at that level.   But its not a case anymore from
> > the technology level of saying "you must have this to
> > have an SOA" - as UDDI found out - that dog does not
> > hunt.
> >  
> > Identify the business needs in a replicatable and formal
> > way - and the technology to accomplish that will then
> > make sense for people.  Again the OASIS BCM TC is
> > focused there.
> >  
> > The platform for "ebXML Architecture" may actually be
> > a losing proposition - and instead just perpetuates the
> > notion of SOA v ebXML - whereas if the effort is
> >  
> >   "ebXML V3.0 for SOA" 
> >  
> > I think you have a much much stronger message that
> > all the TCs can signup to - to make sure their piece
> > of the pie makes ebXML for SOA a compelling
> > business success.
> >  
> > Cheers, DW.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Senior Standards Strategist
> Adobe Systems, Inc.
> http://www.adobe.com
> 
> 
> 
>