[no subject]

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
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>