[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: UN/CEFACT to introduce BCF to European Capitals
Klaus: Thank you for the clarification. Although I had originally been in favour of harmonization of SOAP and ebXML MS and UDDI/Regrep, after giving it a second thought, it may make more sense to keep them separate. The reasons? IMO - SOAP and ebXML MS both do essentially the same thing, but each have a different set of requirements for why a user would adopt them. SOAP is much more efficient and lightwieght than ebXML MS, yet ebXML offers the features that business users need for most transactions. SOAP is useful to have as a lightwieght option in cases where the features of ebXML MS are not required. Likewise, many ebXML MS adoptees have stated that they used that spec becuase SOAP did not meet all their requirements. UDDI and ebXML RR have a similar relationship. If no content management is needed and only a simply directory like reference is needed, UDDI may suffice. For deployments where the advanced features of ISO/IEC 11179 are needed (such a content lifecycle management) ebXMLrr is a clear winner. I use an anaogy of transportation. I am currently in Ottawa. When I arrived at the airport, I had a choice of taking a bus, taxi, limosine or walking to my hotel. All would have got me there, but in this case, a taxi was a clear winner for my requirements. That does not mean that the public bus service shoudl fold and merge with the local taxi company becuase some people would use that. BCF is a nice guide to help map the businesss requirements to the FSV components. In short, having these choices will ensure that users have their requirements met. One should note that ebXML Registry/Repository actually uses SOAP in the specification for a binding and ebXML MS uses SOAP as the basis. Cheers Duane Klaus-Dieter Naujok wrote: > > On Monday, Sep 22, 2003, at 16:42 US/Pacific, Duane Nickull wrote: > >> Before presenting in Europe, please change your slides. On slide 11, >> there is an assertion that ebXML will migrate to a UDDI registry. > > > Duane, > > The slide was never used during any of our presentations. It was > originally part of our set, but a large number of our slides ended up > of not been used, we also added a few new ones. We planned to update > the site later this week to reflect the presentations as given. > > As to the slide itself, as often is the case, seeing a slide with out > the presenters words used to explain the content, results in > interpretations that is out of context. During the last two, if not > three ebXML sessions (of phase 1) the wish was expressed numerous > times, not only to the executives but also during our open SOAP > discussions, as well as during "What will happen after Vienna" > discussions, that the ebXML Reg/Rep work should be merged with UDDI. > The colunum label "ebXML Goal" was reflecting that wish as stated at > the end of the original ebXML phase. BTW, the other wish expressed was > for ebMS to merge with SOAP. You may recall that UN/CEFACT asked a > number of times what the status of this alignment was during the JCC > discussions. > > As I said, we never used the slide in our presentation, however, that > did not stop the audience to asked a number of times what ever happen > to the Reg/Rep-UDDI alignment? Our response was low key by stating > that this is an issue for OASIS, not UN/CEFACT, as both UDDI and > Reg/Rep are OASIS TC. > > Klaus > > -- > Klaus-Dieter Naujok UN/CEFACT/TMG Chair > Global e-Business Advisory Council Principal Advisor > Business Web Site www.ge-bac.com > Personal Web Site www.klaus.naujok.name > TMG Web Site http://webster.disa.org/cefact-groups/tmg > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to the uncefact-tmg-general listserve. > To unsubscribe send an email to email@example.com with the > following subject: Unsubscribe uncefact-tmg-general If you do not > receive confirmation of your unsubscribe request please notify > firstname.lastname@example.org to report the problem.