[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebsoa] IBM BI-ICS
OK - despite Scott saying that BC-ICS is not IBMs answer to CAM, the fact remains that if you have CAM, which we do, CAM is available in open source - and an OASIS spec' - then there is absolutely no earthly reason why you would want to do ICS instead. It's like saying well - I know you have a car - but I'm still going to ride this bicycle. Also notice that CAM is highly extensible - fits into all kinds of other longterm upgrades - like agent directed mapping, OWL directed discovery of available CAM templates, industry catalogues of business processes, building domain dictionaries and vocabularies, then payload validation from ebMS or BPEL, and on and on. It's the old adage - once you have this in XML syntax it can be hugely leveraged. ICS is frankly a deadend alley - its does what it does, and that's it; its a one trick pony. Worse - whatever you are doing in ICS - you will eventually going to have to re-do into CAM - because you are going to need what CAM offers beyond what ICS can offer in an ebSOA deployment. The place Scott started from with ICS was back last September at XML2003 in Philly when he saw how much progress we'd made with CAM - and in his value judgement - he thought he'd make something simpler and more limited that can be put together really quickly and simply - works with XSD, and does not use an ebXML Registry... So - OK he did that - and he has it. And he's not having to use CAM - which was his objective achieved. That's fine for Scott - and the quick-fix-it uses he doing with it. Long term also - he does not want any potential avenue that leads to any ebXML Registry applications any time whatever. However - when you look at the full-up needs you realize that CAM just does everything better and more comprehensively than ICS. BTW - you do NOT have to use an ebXML Registry with CAM - it functions in "local definitions" mode just like ICS - if that is all you want to do with it. However - people pretty soon realize that CAM ContentReference section is the key to building industry dictionaries (like the UDEF folks are seeing already) and ideally equipped to allow fullup regisrty directed semantic noun definitions - and moving them to next-generation information system integration. And - yes - the UBL folks should see that CAM is also CCTS aware - as we've built all those 'hooks' into CAM too. That is what we are working on enabling with the Registry SCM team today - nouns and business catalogues that are CAM enabled and deliver on the vision of dictionary driven design and information integration. Last but very much not least is CONTEXT. Support for dynamic content assembly and validation is quite simply where CAM has absolutely no equals today. Context driven interactions is absolutely the corner stone of ebSOA - next generation IMHO - that completes the ability to have agile information interchanges - that we did not do in ebXML V1.0 because of time-to-market constraints. So people can follow Scott and his ICS - just so long as they realize the background and the focus it has. Those people interested in fully context driven information systems and agile SOA implementations should look at slide #26 in my presentation here, http://drrw.net/presentations/ebXML%20Today%20-%20March%2004.zip and look at the two BPEL use cases for CAM here: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/documents.php?wg_abbrev=wsbpel and then you realize that ICS cannot touch any of this to the same level and sophistication that is really needed and that CAM provides. That's why I put this presentation together - because I saw this all coming down the pike... I like Scott - he's a smart fellow - and he's also a very good IBM employee. OK - I'll get off my soap-box now! Thanks, DW. ----- Original Message ----- From: <david.burdett@commerceone.com> To: <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>; <ebsoa@lists.oasis-open.org>; <regrep-cc-review@lists.oasis-open.org>; <cam@lists.oasis-open.org>; <regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 5:39 PM Subject: RE: [ebsoa] IBM BI-ICS There's more information on this initiative available at [1] and [2] and a specification at [3]. However Business Payload Composition bit sounds to me awfully similar in scope to work being done by UBL see [4] which says "The TC will then design a mechanism for the generation of context-specific business schemas through the application of transformation rules to the common UBL source library". ... or am I missing something. David [1] http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-02-02-a.html [2] http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-biics/ [3] ftp://www6.software.ibm.com/software/developer/library/x-biics/BI-ICSSpec_v1.html [4] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ubl -----Original Message----- From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 2:26 PM To: ebsoa@lists.oasis-open.org; CCRev; CAM; Registry TC - SCM SC Subject: [ebsoa] IBM BI-ICS This morning at the XML.gov monthly meeting[1] I saw a presentation given by Scott Hinkleman of IBM on IBM's new "Business Integration - Information Conformance Standards (BI-ICS)" specification[2]. I found it quite interesting, and thought I'd provide a few comments here. Although not available as of this e-mail, the presentation should be available at the XML.gov site[3] within the next few days, if IBM does make it available. BI-ICS essentially lives at what IBM calls the "Business Level" of the Web Services stack, above "Service Composition" (where WS BPEL, WS-Transaction, etc. live). I know - it sounds like the "ebXML area" of the stack, so we might very well expect some overlap in this and future specs - as BI-ICS is apparently one of 4 planned "specification areas" for this "framework" (my own use of this term) which is as of yet unnamed. Another area will be "Business Payload Composition", which - Scott Hinkleman stated - "has its roots in ebXML Core Components", and specifies a "context-driven approach" to payload composition (overlaps, anyone?). Scott did, however, state that BI-ICS is "not IBM's answer to OASIS CAM". IBM is soliciting interest in advancing BI-ICS to an open standards consortium. Let the discussions begin... Kind Regards, Joe [1] http://xml.gov/agenda/20040317.htm [2] http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-02-02-a.html [3] http://xml.gov/presentations.asp
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]