Re: [egov] [Q] ebXML/Web Services sub-committee

[Evdemon John <evdemon_john@bah.com>]

Zachary Alexander wrote:
> 
> I am confused about the work break down for the sub-committees:
> 	1. Who would handle marketing questions?
> 	2. Who would handle outreach questions?
Good call.  I think we should have an Outreach/Marketing subcommittee. 
Every other OASIS TC I have been involved with has had to set one up.

>  	3. Are there any provisions to insure that SME concerns are addressed?
I assumed the Requirements group is going to handle this.  Best 
Practices may be able to take a look at the requirements from a SME 
point of view.

> 	4. How are regional issues identified and addressed?
We had discussed the scope of Language Translation extending to 
localization, but I'm not sure if it was ever approved.

> 	5. Who would handle questions of building an e-Gov Ontology?
I would expect Requirements to do this.  I expect the Requirements 
subcommittee may eventually spin off additional subcommittees.

> 	6. How will existing XML vocabularies be identified for consideration?
Again, I would expect Requirements to initially handle this (although 
this is clearly a Best Practice in terms of execution).

> 	7. Who would build reference implementations?
Depends on what is being built.  I would expect some of this to be 
handled by other OASIS TCs (particularly ebXML Implement).  This could 
also be handled by a Requirements "sub-subcommittee".

> 	8. Would there be any sub-committee concerned with acquiring funds or
> teaming with other organizations to build reference implementations?
> 
Per the minutes (per liaisons) : "JB felt it was too early and we should 
determine this later"

> IMHO, ebXML has the potential to provide tremendous benefits for Gov
> organizations and their constituents. But, ebXML has suffered from a “If you
> build it they will come” mentality. 

I agree - we need to remain clearly focused here to avoid the risk of 
getting distracted.  This is an e-Gov TC, not an ebXML initiative.  We 
should use ebXML only when (if) appropriate.

> Is this just another standards effort or an technology advocacy effort? 

In my personal opinion/hope, this TC is a best practices initiative that 
happens to use technology.  The technology should only be an enabler (a 
tool, if you will).  Technology should not be the objective of this 
group.  People interested in building ebXML infrastructures will be 
happier if they go join ebXML Implement or some other technology-centric 
TC.

> I apologize if I my questions are redundant.  But I can’t show my clients
> these documents and make the case there will be anything but potential
> long-term benefits. My clients need results in the short-term.  They need
> quick wins to build momentum.
> 

Wonderful.  This is the reason I'm excited about this group - I'm not 
interested in a 3-5 year view of what might be possible.  As Thomas 
Edison once said, "there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish 
something".

Happy holidays everyone.

John Evdemon
Senior Associate
Digital Strategies
Booz | Allen | Hamilton