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

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

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
>