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

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

Matt,

You're right - I need a cold beer!

I'm just sore I'm not making all the big $$$'s like those Gartner types can
; -)

DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
To: "'ebSOA'" <ebsoa@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: [ebsoa] Scope of TC (was SOA and Shared Semantics / Editors
ActionItem, et al)


> Sorry Matt, you're right - but it's just the July heat. :)
>
> Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
> >
> > I agree that we want to be wary of the analyst camp, but this thread is
getting combative. Guys, please simmer down.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Matt
> > On Jul 7, 2004, at 12:12 PM, 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
> >
> > ___________________________
> > Matthew MacKenzie
> > Senior Architect
> > IDBU Server Solutions
> > Adobe Systems Canada Inc.
> > http://www.adobe.com/products/server/
> > mattm@adobe.com
> > +1 (506) 871.5409
>
> -- 
> Kind Regards,
> Joseph Chiusano
> Associate
> Booz | Allen | Hamilton
>