Resolving the empasse - UBL v Microsoft monopoly position on the desktop?

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Christian / Mikkel,   

Again - I really appreciate your frankness here - and I feel for your
situation.     

I know - because I have been there on the NIH project too.  What goes on
behind closed doors can get very ugly.   

But I have to ask you - where do we draw the line here?  Are you going
to let Microsoft's rationale and force majeure here - extend beyond
Denmark and dictate this to the whole of the NES, and then to Europe?  


I'm looking at the situation in Massachusetts and Microsoft Word. 
Everyone said - hey these guys will never beat Microsoft - well they
took a stand for open standards and they won the case - Microsoft is
now working on ODF / OOXML interoperability - by proxy - but even so
they are agreeing to implementing this.   

And then I look at the Canadian government - they told Oracle they had
to have ebXML v2.0 CPA/ebMS support in Oracle/AS if they wanted an
important contract extension.  So now Oracle has that.   

Microsoft could VERY VERY EASILY do the same thing here - sponsor a
company to produce a .NET ebXML solution that fully supports the UBL
approach in Denmark - with pre-built adaptors to the accounting
packages.  If Microsoft did that - there would be a queue of companies
wanting to help.  And Microsoft can easily also sponsor an ebXML
adaptor for Biztalk server - in fact XMLGlobal built just such an
adaptor 4 years ago now - that worked just fine.   

So why are you letting Microsoft push you around?  It appears that their
actions here could very easily result in action against them from the EU
- as it already has on other areas.   

As for SOA - it is very clear that B2B is an integral part of SOA.  I
just won an award for my project presentation to the US Gov SOA CoP in
October - that showed how to leverage ebXML and OASIS BCM design
approaches to create a synergistic solution.  I used several real
projects to illustrate the concepts including Amazon.com, NIH, and
USPS.  In fact the whole POINT of SOA is that it should work
seamlessly!!!  So if your Danish SOA cannot use ebXML - it's obviously
not an SOA!?!   

Let me translate your statement - "but please don't make this a
ideological issue, because that will hurt UBL and it wil hurt ebXML as
well".    

Microsoft have said - "OK - we'll help you get UBL working - but on our
terms - no ebXML - only our .NET / WS solution stack.  And from the
aggressive project timetable Denmark has - we don't have any time to
waste on distractions.  We have to focus to succeed. If we get any
trouble from those ebXML zealots - well then - we'll have to seriously
re-consider our participation".

Have not Microsoft ALREADY made this an ideological issue?!?   

How much more can you hurt ebXML by totally excluding it from the
solution stack?   

I'm not looking to get hysterical here.  Right now I see that you need
to open this up.  There is absolutely NO REASONS why you cannot allow a
parallel small track to work on creating ebXML interfacing along side
the main SOA project.  And working with NES is going to require this.  


I'd put 1,000 Euros on the fact that - by starting to look at B2B
extensions to the mainline SOA/WS-* stuff Microsoft is driving - you
will uncover sound design and implementation details that will
otherwise be missed.  Capabilities and extensions that will be most
useful as you extend and expand.  I know - because of the design
experience I had at NIH - and tables and mechanisms I had to fight hard
to get included - that prove there worth everyday.   

I point to the Oracle B2B + BPEL experience also - until the Helena
project showed how excellent this was together - they had no idea it
could be so powerful.  Now they are successfully marketing that.   

If you truly believe in the principles that we know that UBL stands for
- then you have to redress what clearly the current situation is - that
IMHO is completely at odds with what you are long term seeking to
achieve.   

Microsoft can and will be part of the partnership - and they will
respect you for your stance and the decisions that need to be made -
and everyone will prosper more from that - as you are seeking to
achieve for Denmark.  I do not have any problems working with Microsoft
when it is an open relationship.   

Don't let the short term ugly spoil the beautiful vision here.   

Thanks, DW 

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

 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: VS: [ubl-dev] Where to next? - It's not the traction, nor
supporting two stacks, nor any of this!
From: "Mikkel Hippe Brun" <MHB@itst.dk>
Date: Mon, February 05, 2007 3:42 am
To: "ubl-dev" <ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org>

Forward from Christian Lanng

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Christian Lanng 
Sendt: 5. februar 2007 09:40
Til: 'David RR Webber (XML)'; Mikkel Hippe Brun
Cc: ubl-dev; fulton.wilcox@coltsnecksolutions.com; Roger Bass; Sacha
Schlegel; Stephen Green
Emne: SV: [ubl-dev] Where to next? - It's not the traction, nor
supporting two stacks, nor any of this!


Dear David

You probably don't know me, im the person responsible for the danish
infrastructure implementation effort. I've been following what have
evolved
into a full fledged flamewar on this list and thought it was time to add
a
few points you guys seem to be missing.

1) Denmark has nothing against ebXML or EBMS infact I was the one
arguing for
adoption of UBL 2.0 within UN/CEFACT, at the UN/CEFACT plenary in
Geneve, the
plenary that led UN/CEFACT acknowledging that UBL 2.0 was a
steppingstone
towards a common UN/CEFACT/UBL standard and part of the ebXML framework.
We
would neither commit a lot of ressources to building gateways towards
other
infrastructures if we did not believe that ebXML was important.

2) Neither do we have anything against the "big six" as you name them.
We
believe that they very much are an important part of digitizing our
country,
but we are not afraid of them and we will continue to use our power as
government to pressure them towards open standards, full disclosure of
specs
etc.. We know the challenge lock-in poses, both in the open-standards
world
as well as in the closed, but right now we are fighting our battles one
at
the time. Personally I think that your analysis of what is happening to
what
is "REALLY" going on here is a little bit skewed, but you are probably
right
in some aspects.

3) Mikkel and our government center is not charged with building the
best
e-business infrastructure possible, we are charged with building the
best SOA
infrastructure for the whole public sector as well as the private
sector.
This a very ambitous project and like it or not and success is dependent
on
convincing the "big six" that the cake is bigger for everyone if we
create
interoperability. Microsoft is an important part of this
interoperability,
right now 98% of the danish companies OS is from Microsoft and 63% of
their
ERP systems are from Microsoft. That is a hefty bias in the decision
proces
in Denmark, that doesn't mean we compromise everything and just jump on
the
Microsoft bandwagon, we have chosen the WS-I stack because all the major
players have comitted to it and we have held Microsoft responsible for
the
interoperability problems we have found between Sandesha and WCF adn
vice
versa, which is why Sandesha and WCF are interopable in their newest
build. I
know you might not like this or think that it would have been better to
choose the more "open" approach, but frankly speaking this is business
requirements and WS-I where we found the largest overlap between what
the
businesses in Denmark where already running and the need for open
standards.
It's not about the TRUEST open standard and it has never been for the
danish
government, it's about fulfilling business needs preferably on
open-standards. 

David it's okay you don't like the danish choice of standards for the
infrastructure, but you seem to be confusing vendor strategy with danish
government strategy. And the answer is same, as when I was blamed to be
an
UBL sales representative at the Geneve plenary. Denmark is neither, we
are
not a UBL representative or a WS-I representative we are representing
users
and the market and business requirements. We believe UBL to be the best
choice for payload and therefore have committed a lot of energy and
ressources into UBL and we believe WS-I to the best choice for
infrastructure
to fulfill the danish business requirements, yours might differ or might
not
agree, but please don't make this a ideological issue, because that will
hurt
UBL and it wil hurt ebXML as well. 

Regards

/Christian Lanng