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

[Matthew MacKenzie <mattm@adobe.com>]

lol.  beer is a good idea, and I am not even getting testy yet today.

but then again, I'm Canadian, eh!


On Jul 7, 2004, at 1:47 PM, David RR Webber wrote:

> 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
___________________________
Matthew MacKenzie
Senior Architect
IDBU Server Solutions
Adobe Systems Canada Inc.
http://www.adobe.com/products/server/
mattm@adobe.com
+1 (506) 871.5409