[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: SV: [ubl-dev] Danish implementation of UBL published asGood Practice Case in the EU eGovernmen
I note that it is only the very last paragraph in an 18 page report which mentions IBM and Microsoft backing (as an argument for an opinion). I was taught that when writing a report you should be factual until the last paragraph where you might have the luxury of voicing an opinion. So is it fair to make that last paragraph the basis of a strategy for such a national public sector initiative? The rest of the report seems to say, in short but very strongly, 'aim to adopt both WS* and ebXML'. That seems to be wise - as Solomon, I believe said 'sow both morning and evening sowings because you don't know which will succeed' (my paraphrase of course). I know, of course, this is Denmark's business, not mine, but I guess, as the report suggests, it will be tied in closely with that of the EU. All the best Stephen Green >>> "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info> 02/02/07 15:38:25 >>> Mikkel, I checked out CBDI's credentials and for once they appear to be a balanced body. Unlike the recent Forrester report that was clearly little more than an infommercial that we have had to refute and debunk elsewhere. However it is totally frustrating to see the criteria used to support the decision - and I question the depth of research and sources used to obtain the outcomes. Obviously, as you note, alot of this is preferences - but if you ask mostly Catholics about religion - you will get certain answers. What I do see is that the WS-I* stack (I had to smile at your Freudian "stank" typo) - is significantly complex with many many more parts to it - and completely controlled and dictated by the "Big 6" you indicate. Also - in terms of the "Big 6" support for ebXML - only Microsoft is the hold out - all the others have solid implementations - and in the case of Oracle - their's is brand new and very good - see : http://dotnet.sys-con.com/read/318418.htm . And of course there are open source solutions that do work well in the .NET environment. When we look at the business drivers - one clearly is to enable small business participation. I fear that WS-I* is a technology stack for large corporates and military and government use where the requirements are for top-end levels of security and authentication - and costs and resources are not an issue. The OMG is a major driver in WS-I - and all their key members primary customers are US DoD and battlefield type deployments. The use case for small businesses is completely out of alignment with this. While clearly the barge has moved down the canal here - in terms of the WS-I decision - I would urge the NES to look again at adding ebXML capabilities - because this seems to be a low-hanging fruit, low risk option, that they can add - without major extra cost. 1) The two technologies can as you note - coexist together - and in fact, as you also noted, ebXML has certain unique features that are important - and you are already building this in for intra-country use (the new ebXML v3.0 adds significantly to this as well BTW). 2) Offering people the ebXML option empowers smaller businesses - both as service providers and users - and excluding particularly small service providers by going with a "Big 6" only solution - appears fraught and likely to be challenged as creating a closed restricted monopoly marketplace. 3) Having two solution stacks is very prudent - not putting all your eggs in one basket. We've already seen cases where one web-based infrastructure suffers some kind of network failure / attack - and then the alternative is able to offer relief and coverage, particularly if it is batch push/pull based as ebXML is. 4) Costs, scalability and delivery. One major benefit of the approach I outlined is that unlike the WS-I system where the central services require major infrastructure - the ebXML based one is distributed - so the demands on the central systems are massively less. We have to note here that the "Big 6" want to sell WS-I precisely because it is the opposite - and therefore up sells for them. Any installation already running Oracle AS today can immediately add ebMS support - takes less than a day to install and configure. 5) Extensibility. The ebXML option allows businesses to operate in a P2P way between each other without involving the central system. This has a huge incalculatable upside way beyond eInvoice - that clearly is missing from a WS-I centralized approach. I sincerely hope that NES can add back in an ebXML approach to compliment their WS-I decision - because two years from now - they will be thanking us for our foresight and vision - and counting the infrastructure cost savings and smiling. 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 * Denmark Tel: +45 3545 0000 Fax: +45 3545 0010 www.itst.dk <http://www.itst.dk> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ubl-dev-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: ubl-dev-help@lists.oasis-open.org ______________________________________________________________________ Please note the new simpler name for our website: http://www.bristol.gov.uk Our email addresses have also changed - visit http://www.bristol.gov.uk/bigchange for further details. Sign-up for our email bulletin giving news, have-your-say and event information at: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/newsdirect ______________________________________________________________________ Please note the new simpler name for our website: http://www.bristol.gov.uk Our email addresses have also changed - visit http://www.bristol.gov.uk/bigchange for further details. Sign-up for our email bulletin giving news, have-your-say and event information at: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/newsdirect
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]