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

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

Fair enough.

David RR Webber wrote:
> 
> Joe,
> 
> That is NOT what I'm saying at all.   I'm saying your metric is false and
> misleading / worthless.
> 
> By your and Gartner's measure when Einstein wrote the formula for
> E=MC squared - it would have got a negative rating - do not use - since
> its adoption by everyone was low.
> 
> We're here to provide ground breaking work that sets new measures
> for the industry - not kowtow to some vendor product set and
> marketing criteria for VP of Sales.
> 
> If we are going to base what we are working on by what Gartner says
> then we may as well give up now.
> 
> It's our task to create good work that leads to people adopting what
> we are delivering.  Einstein understood that very clearly.
> 
> Thanks, DW
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
> To: "'ebSOA'" <ebsoa@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 10:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [ebsoa] Scope of TC (was SOA and Shared Semantics / Editors
> Action Item, et al)
> 
> > Thanks David. I will interpret your answer as meaning:
> >
> > (1) The current level of adoption of BCM and EPR in industry is low.
> > (2) The current level of adoption of BCM and EPR in the US federal space
> > is low;
> > (3) The current level of adoption of BCM and EPR by vendors is low.
> >
> > All: We should VERY carefully consider how our TC will approach the
> > incorporation of initiatives for which the overall adoption by industry,
> > government, and vendors is very low. IOW, how well-equipped will we be
> > to encourage adoption of our work if it relies so heavily on shaky
> > foundations?
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > David RR Webber wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Kind Regards,
> > Joseph Chiusano
> > Associate
> > Booz | Allen | Hamilton
> >

-- 
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz | Allen | Hamilton