[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ebsoa] Scope of TC (was SOA and Shared Semantics / Editors ActionItem, et al)
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:EPR
(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
vendorboth in industry and in the US federal space? This would include
lastadoption as well.Action
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
Item, et al)
Dear ebSOA:
A number of points strike me, looking back over the posts in the
drivefew
days. I'd like to give my tuppence worth as someone trying to
perspective...implementation from a management and not a technology
RIMOne of the great attractions of the ebXML - and particularly CCTS,
relatedand
BPSS - has been its generic approach to solving a series of
semanticswarnedproblems. It has been a breath of fresh air to those, like me, who
from early days that XML was not going to solve the world's
syntaxwith
some carefully crafted Schema and tag names. The emphasis on
similarbuildneutrality in particular has allowed us to concentrate on definingsemantics
upstream of any implementation, and yet have a rich, powerful, andreliable
framework to give developers/implementers, whatever the hell they
with.
Going beyond the SOA hype, I am certainly expecting something
arefrom
ebSOA, and the more I look at it, the more I realise that there
andstrong
echoes in the initiative that I have flagged up with the eGov TC
thethe
interoperabilityEuropean standards body, CEN, that I christened "semantic
business implementation guidelines" (or SIBIG). Keep a focus on
(tuplefollowgeneric,
high-level, *service-oriented* issues and let the technical specs
wouldnaturally...
CCTS offers a standardised method to define business semantics. I
metadataexpect 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
stores/registries), and other association/assertion mechanisms
followwithinstores, Topic Maps, OWL, etc), would therefore seem to be entirely
updatingscope.
On the down side, however, I'm not so happy with the emphasis on
the *technical* architecture of ebXML: this can only (and will)
reason -once
the semantics and service level stuff is properly addressed.
To answer Jo's question: If someone did not - for whatever
output"subscribe" to the "ebXML way of doing things", the committee's
even if*should* IMO be useful whatever: just as CCTS is very valuable
Wileyyou
Parliamentdon't buy into the rest (ebMS, BPSS, or UBL, etc).information
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
purposes only. Any correspondence with my former service or the
should be addressed to gri@europarl.eu.it
Author of "Information Architecture with XML", published by John
&
Sons, see special offer at: www.XMLbyStealth.net
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
--
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]