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

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

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