OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-msg message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0 ?

Title: RE: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0 ?
Ralph, thanks for the kind remarks.  You are correct that our main objective was Interoperability rather than Conformance, but this does not mean we ignore conformance.  While it is probably not possible to assure 100% conformance to any specification, I would venture the opinion that the DGI method actually gives greater assurance of conformance than any other.  We certainly scrutinize the output of every participant's code to make sure there is no deviation from the specification.  Since we had four participants this round, this meant that there were at least four sets of eyes checking each company's submission for any such deviation.  The more eyes the better.
The only other method I know of where conformance may be tested is some form of Reference Implementation.  This was the method used for years, primarily because it was not feasible to do the kind of rigorous, full-matrix testing now possible on the Internet.  After all, a Reference Implementation is still an Implementation and subject to flaws.  Even though, in the past, this was the accepted way to assure conformance (because there was nothing better), this method does not always to produce satisfactory results.  Even if product A works with Ref and product B works with Ref, there is no assurance that A works with B -- and it is relatively sure they don't.  DGI estimates that you will get 85-90% Interoperability with this method, which is a good start but not nearly enough for B2B.
In terms of cost, Reference Implementations for this type of application typically cost in the millions, plus maintenance.  DGI is providing a comparable (superior) method for less than a tenth of that cost.
You are correct, we do not focus on Compliance, but that is included in our end result.  Please ask anyone in the test whether we are out of compliance with any part of the spec?  Because of time and resource constraints (and a wandering specification), we were forced to test a subset of the total spec in this round, but that will be remedied in the future.
David Fischer
Drummond Group.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Berwanger [mailto:rberwanger@bTrade.com]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:53 PM
To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Bill Morgan
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0 ?

    Before we start beating on Drummond Group we should be careful to understand what they were offering.  They were not certifying that vendor products were 'compliant' with the specification.  They were offering a service to ensure interoperability between products of various vendors.  This may seem like hair-splitting (and for those who know me you understand how difficult that is), but it is the simple truth.  Vendors were not forced to engage in the testing, they voluntarily participated.  There was NO other venue and at least this method provided a somewhat impartial third-party validation of facts assumed by the vendors
    I agree that it would be improper to take intellectual property 'donated' by various organizations and sell it for gain.  Like you and the rest of those on the listserv, we spend significant resources assisting with standards work.  It is intended to produce an open consensus-based standard, not to advance the interest of any individual company.  I think we are sharing the same soap box.  However, in fairness to the Drummond Group, that is not what has happened.  They took the specification and produced a test plan which allowed the participants in the test to exchange messages and to systematically exercise their solutions to ensure that they worked with similiar products from other vendors.  In the end, those that participated can affirm that their products can interoperate.  They might even say that their products are compliant, but not based on the results of the test.  That was not the purpose of the test.  For the record, I do not totally agree with the statements that David has made below, but I cannot fault Drummond Group for their actions.
    Regarding compliance testing, a very different process is needed.  I exchanged messages with Prakash yesterday on this topic.  I am hoping that the OASIS IIC TC can move this forward.  I am prepared to assist anyway necessary to help this work progress.  I think we may need to bring additional resources to the table to assist the IIC.  Additionally, there other efforts, like the B2B Testbed, being proposed by OAG and NIST that can provide additional support to this area. 
Ralph Berwanger
Ambassador to Standards

-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer [mailto:david@drummondgroup.com]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:05 PM
To: Seaburg, Lisa; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0 ?

DGI has donated thousands of hours to ebXML over the last two years.  We are represented on five committees (two as editors and one as v1.0 Chair) all non-reimbursed.  The interoperability test ran about four months with daily conference calls and constant work on our part.  We are providing this service for very little more than cost recovery.
DGI is not taking advantage.  Why is this any different than someone implementing the spec and selling their product, thus taking advantage of hundreds of hours of volunteer work?  No one actually volunteers for ebXML.  Everyone has a business reason to be here.
David Fischer
Drummond Group.
-----Original Message-----
From: Seaburg, Lisa [mailto:lisa.seaburg@commerceone.com]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 1:04 PM
To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0 ?

Excuse me, but if this is true, the fee is $35,000!  Then the Drummond group is blatantly taking advantage of the hundreds of volunteer hours put in by all the people involved.  I would like to get on my soapbox about this, but I won't today.  I will wait and see what other comments come from this email thread.


-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 7:58 AM
To: Patrick Yee
Cc: Cliff Collins; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0 ?

The stated charge is a bit steep at $35,000 a pop.


Patrick Yee wrote:
> Excuse me, I want to ask a side track question.
> What is the charge to have the messaging implementation to be tested by the
> Drummond Group? Thanks.
> Regards,
> -Patrick
> --
> Patrick Yee
> System Architect
> Center for E-Commerce Infrastructure Development (CECID)
> Dept. of Computer Science and Information Systems
> The University of Hong Kong
> Tel: (852) 22415674
> Fax: (852) 25474611
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cliff Collins" <collinsc@sybase.com>
> To: <ian.c.jones@bt.com>; <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:06 AM
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0 ?
> > Sybase has implemented Version 2.0 of the specification.  Our
> > product is also part of the interoperability test that
> > is being run by the Drummond Group.
> >
> > Cliff
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ian.c.jones@bt.com [mailto:ian.c.jones@bt.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:47 AM
> > > To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0 ?
> > >
> > >
> > > Implementers
> > >
> > > As I only have a couple of outstanding non returned ballots the
> > > specification looks likely to pass I need confirmation that the
> > > specification has been implemented and does work as we have specified
> for
> > > the submission process.  I would like this to be open so please post an
> > > e-mail to the list confirming you have successfully implemented
> > > Version 2.0
> > > of the message services.  This is NOT a product announcement only that
> you
> > > have implemented and tested it internally.  If you do not want this
> public
> > > please e-mail me direct and only the number of implantation will be made
> > > public.
> > >
> > > Ian Jones
> > > Chair OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC
> > >
> > > Tel:  +44 (0)29 2072 4063
> > > Fax: +44 (0)29 2072 4137
> > > Email: ian.c.jones@bt.com
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> > >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

CTO, XML Global Technologies
Transformation - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/foundation/
ebXML Central - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/central/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC