SV: [ubl-dev] Danish implementation of UBL published as Good Practice Case in the EU eGovernment Good Practice Framework

["Mikkel Hippe Brun" <MHB@itst.dk>]

Dear David and Sacha,
 
Thank you for your comments. I suggest that we continue this discussion on
ubl-dev.
 
I was personally one of the promotors of using ebMS in the VAN infrastructure
in Denmark. The National IT and Telecom Agency facilitated a process, where
the VAN-operators developed the ebMS profile, and we were very happy with the
outcome. ebMS is a simple and easy to read spec. 
 
However - we have not chosen to go with ebXML in the public sector for a
number of reasons.
 
* We had CBDI analyze and compare ebXML and the WS-* standards. See "The Role
of ebXML and Web Service Protocols" at
http://www.oio.dk/files/ebxml-og-webservices-soa-rapport-mvtu-v1.0.pdf  The
pdf contains a Danish introduction but the rest is in English. The report
emphazises that the WS-* standards has more traction and vendor support than
ebXML.
 
* We asked the industry and the public sector in Denmark to come up with
business requirements for an infrastructure. We also asked them about their
preference in regards to the choice of standards. We made it clear that the
easy choice (from a technology viewpoint) would be to go with ebXML. The
feedback we got was that they wanted us to follow the WS-* road rather than
an ebXML road because large suppliers like BEA, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle
were supporting the WS-* stank of standards and the resolution of
interoperability issues in WS-I.
 
Denmark is part of the NES group and discussions about infrastructure is also
an important part of the collaboration. We have spent considerable time on
discussing how we ensure that messages can flow freely between different
network infrastructures (ie. and ebXML framework and a WS-* based framework).
It is our goal that it should be possible to exchange UBL messages across
borders and between networks. Sweden has been using an ebXML infrastructure
and now Denmark is building an WS-* infrastructure. Denmark has a strong PKI
infrastructure and Sweeden does not. None of this matters because the
establishment of gateways will ensure that messages can flow freely.
 
We are currently establishing gateways to the VAN-operators such that UBL
messages will be able to flow between the networks. It would be possible for
us to make a similar gateway to a pure internetbased use of ebXML her in
Denmark should anyone request it.
 
We have invested lots of resources in ensuring interoperability between the
.Net platform and the Java platform (Axis Sandesha and Rampart). Supporting
SMTP in addition to HTTP in combination with WS-Security and
WS-ReliableMessaging has also been a difficult nut to crack. It has been
difficult to achieve some of the same capabilities that we meet in ebXML. But
it was a deliberate choice we made. We support the use of open standards and
every line of code we produce in this projcet is donated to open source. 
 
We are in no way relegious about these issues. I do not beleive that Europe
will have one homogenious infrastructure because of national and regional
differences in how security is handled. I congratulate the people behind
ebXML for producing high quality standards and free tools. I would love to
see more use of UBL around the world on any infrastructure. 
 
Best regards
 
Mikkel
 
 
Mikkel Hippe Brun 
Chief consultant, M.Sc. 
Direct: +45 3337 9220 
Cell: +45 2567 4252 
E-mail: mhb@itst.dk <mailto:mhb@itst.dk>  
 
National IT and Telecom Agency 
Center for Service Oriented Infrastructure 
Holsteinsgade 63 
DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø 
Denmark 
Tel: +45 3545 0000 
Fax: +45 3545 0010 
www.itst.dk <http://www.itst.dk>