Re: [regrep] V3.0 of ebXML for SOA

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

Joe,

Also sounds like the OAIS BCM work should be of interest to
these folks in enabling them to see the bigger picture view here
and not having to be dependent on shortterm technology
stories.  The need for registry services to support the SOA
is covered and the provision of semantic content in support
of netcentric systems.

The new Brochure on BCM is publically available here:


http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/4427/BCM%20brochure%20-%20December%2003.ZIP

Cheers, DW.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
To: "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>
Cc: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>; <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [regrep] V3.0 of ebXML for SOA


> All,
>
> In regard to SOAs and ebXML Registry: I am starting to do more work in
> DoD's NCES (Net-Centric Enterprise Services) initiative, which provides
> enterprise services in support of the Global Information Grid (GIG). SOA
> is a vital concept to this initiative, and there is quite a bit of
> mention of UDDI. I am making sure that I continually remind folks of
> ebXML Registry's role in SOAs and the discovery of services.
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
> Duane Nickull wrote:
> >
> > The fact is that the architecture needs to be updated if ebXML is to
> > survive.  The architecture is not, and likely will never, contain enough
> > details that it can be implemented by itself.  Implementors will need to
> > rely heavily on the other TC's and some sort of process to map their
> > requirements to the specific technologies needed for the SOA to work.
> >
> > Architectures job is to help guide the requirements to a set of
> > components, agnostic of the underlying technology (ie - BPEL vs. BPSS),
> > as long as the technology does the job at hand.
> >
> > Duane
> >
> > David RR Webber wrote:
> >
> > >Duane,
> > >
> > >As with all these items - its the input BEFORE that counts too -
> > >in making sure whatever transpires is most effectively leveraging
> > >our limited resources.
> > >
> > >I'd like to see OASIS and the Board themselves giving us
> > >guidance too.  It needs to be thought through carefully - not
> > >just a - great lets setup a committee!
> > >
> > >As with any undertaking - careful planning up front makes
> > >all the difference downstream - the best answer may not
> > >be the first move you look at.
> > >
> > >Cheers, DW.
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>
> > >To: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>
> > >Cc: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > >Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:48 AM
> > >Subject: Re: [regrep] V3.0 of ebXML for SOA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>David:
> > >>
> > >>Great - so we can count on your input to the group then?? (If and when
> > >>approved)
> > >>
> > >>Duane
> > >>
> > >>David RR Webber wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Duane raised some interesting points that I'd like to
> > >>>focus on - in regard to - creating a new 3.0 release of
> > >>>ebXML.
> > >>>
> > >>>My biggest departure point is around the single
> > >>>issue of a perscribed architecture as opposed to
> > >>>a suggested architecture.
> > >>>
> > >>>I believe that trying to force certain technology
> > >>>components down peoples throats as "you must
> > >>>have this to be ebXML compliant" is a serious
> > >>>mistake - and especially in the area of payloads.
> > >>>
> > >>>One of the reasons payloads were never perscribed
> > >>>is exactly that.
> > >>>
> > >>>The great strength of ebXML is that you can eat just
> > >>>the pieces you need.
> > >>>
> > >>>Next up - Registry and CAM components offer a
> > >>>phased approach - that is based on sound business ROI
> > >>>to discreet problems - around information alignment and
> > >>>interoperablity.
> > >>>
> > >>>Now - if people discover they really can save money and
> > >>>work more efficiently by using your technology - you will
> > >>>not have to force them to use it - they will come to it
> > >>>themselves - and that's essential longterm.
> > >>>
> > >>>So - again - its comes back to - articulating where those
> > >>>ROI factors are - from a business-centric view - and that
> > >>>is what we need to spend our effort on IMHO.
> > >>>
> > >>>As for the SOA fit - yes - we do need to make sure that
> > >>>SOA literature includes ebXML components as options
> > >>>there - and so again - the value proposition needs to be
> > >>>made at that level.   But its not a case anymore from
> > >>>the technology level of saying "you must have this to
> > >>>have an SOA" - as UDDI found out - that dog does not
> > >>>hunt.
> > >>>
> > >>>Identify the business needs in a replicatable and formal
> > >>>way - and the technology to accomplish that will then
> > >>>make sense for people.  Again the OASIS BCM TC is
> > >>>focused there.
> > >>>
> > >>>The platform for "ebXML Architecture" may actually be
> > >>>a losing proposition - and instead just perpetuates the
> > >>>notion of SOA v ebXML - whereas if the effort is
> > >>>
> > >>>  "ebXML V3.0 for SOA"
> > >>>
> > >>>I think you have a much much stronger message that
> > >>>all the TCs can signup to - to make sure their piece
> > >>>of the pie makes ebXML for SOA a compelling
> > >>>business success.
> > >>>
> > >>>Cheers, DW.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>--
> > >>Senior Standards Strategist
> > >>Adobe Systems, Inc.
> > >>http://www.adobe.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
of the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Senior Standards Strategist
> > Adobe Systems, Inc.
> > http://www.adobe.com
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.