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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ubl-dev message

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


Subject: Issues with Lawrence Wilkes CDBI document and analysis of ebXML and WS-* (WS-I)


Mikkel, 

Unfortunately the analysis here by Lawrence contains some significant
wrong turns IMHO.  It starts out OK - but there are some underlying
premises that I believe, even back in September 2005, if he had a
better understanding of the ebXML work - he would have seen
differently. 

http://www.oio.dk/files/ebxml-og-webservices-soa-rapport-mvtu-v1.0.pdf 

I'm particularly troubled by the Table on page 8 - because there is a
critical missing column - "Linkage" - to indicate where compatibility /
complementary use can occur. 

The most glaring is the BPSS / BPEL row - which is marked as "different"
in the Overlap colum.  As Oracle showed in the Helena Chemical
implementation - BPEL / CPA / ebXML transaction model / BPSS are highly
compatible and offer major ease of deployment and leverage between them.
Table 5 on page 12 fails to 
make any sense given this real world production deployment and success
that Oracle has shown.  

And the whole development of BPEL and BPSS v2.0.4 in OASIS has been
carefully done so that these are clearly COMPLIMENTARY since they serve
two very different needs. 

It is obviously significant that the table on Page 9 omits BPSS
completely!?!  Table 9 is also at odds with Table 8 - since ebMS v3.0
is noted supporting WS-* interoperability - but Table 8 notes
"different". 
The Table 5 on page 12 is then hopelessly wrong and miscued.

His comments on Convergence on Page 11 are insightful and poignant! 
However again - he mis-reads BPSS / Registry needs.  Registry is in
fact 100% interoperable already with UDDI mission and storing WS-*
artifacts.  BPSS is already covered above.

I commend his comments on Page 13 - this is sensible.  Forrester
singularly failed to comprehend this in
their flawed analysis.  Another factor is what I call "DIY web
services".  This skews the figures.  Many respondents are using DIY (Do
It Yourself) Web services for internal and local point solutions - this
is not formal eBusiness or eCommerce - has nothing to do with WS-I -
but the components show up in these analysis reports - because noone is
differenciating WHY they are using them.  Infact the table shows that
WS-I and ebXML - 17% and 11% - actually are very similar here - because
of their specialized nature.

Page 16 is not completely accurate in comparing Apache for OSS - since
freebXML.org is equivalent.  Unfortunately as I have discovered first
hand Apache is now dominated by the "Big 6" - so any incubator projects
that do not have a "Big 6" sponsor are simply NOT going to get accepted,
or even considered.

Page 18 makes a self-fulfilling statement: "b. The recommendation of
both is likely to result in a status quo where neither appears to
prevail. The result is increased cost and effort to support both
standards"

I find this is NOT compatible with my project experience.  Many many
other factors drive costs on the projects that are completely
de-coupled from the standards selection aspects.  

In fact - I've seen first hand where ebXML was functioning well - and
significant costs were expended to attempt to replace the
functionality.  What this tells us is that WS-I and ebXML are actually
COMPLEMENTARY TECHNOLOGIES and you need BOTH - because their mission
profiles fulfil different needs.  Wilkes talks about this - but does
not have the project experience to see why and how.

Paradoxically we have been here done this before.  Realtime EDI when it
emerged was slated to replace Batch EDI within 5 years.  Fact is it
does not happen.  WS-I is the new "realtime EDI".  Bottom line is -
there are a whole raft of business reasons why you do "batch B2B" -
that result in secure reliable and predictable partner interactions. 
Yes - there are things you need to do in realtime - but that does not
mean EVERYTHING - that gets you into many legal and process problems.

The conclusion is that B2B is an integral part of SOA - adding
significant value - and ebXML is the definitive method for B2B.  It's
very strange that of all people IBM fails to admit this!
  
20:20 hindsight says it would have much more sense to ask the OASIS
ebXML JCC to comment on the report BEFORE you bought the "new airplane"
from the WS-I vendors...  

Lawrence Wilkes from CDBI has published many articles for the "Big 6" on
SOA and WS-I - several at their websites - but this report of yours is
the only peice I could find that he's done that references ebXML. 

 : -(

I appreciate your openness here.

DW 
  

  

  

  

  


"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
 

 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: SV: [ubl-dev] Danish implementation of UBL published as Good
Practice  Case in the EU eGovernment Good Practice Framework
From: "Mikkel Hippe Brun" <MHB@itst.dk>
Date: Thu, February 01, 2007 4:53 pm
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>, "Sacha Schlegel"
<sacha_oasis@schlegel.li>, "ubl-dev" <ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org>

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> 



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