Duane, (01)
you wrote:
> Addendum:
>
> I wrote most of the ebXML technical architecture and worked on several of
> the specs. I also was on the steering committee. I also was CTO of one of
> the handful of companies that implemented some of the specifications. I
> argued that if it didn't technically work, no one would be able to implement
> it and it makes the other arguments moot.
>
> What I said below is factual.
> ...
>>> One of the primary reasons ebXML failed was because the business process
>>> component ignored the technical architecture and delivered something else.
>>> The whole could not function without that critical part. (02)
Of this,
> the business process
> component ignored the technical architecture and delivered something else. (03)
is factual. (04)
> The whole could not function without that critical part. (05)
I think you mean,
the ebXML tool suite could not function as envisaged by the technical
architecture committee with what was developed by the business process
committee. (06)
That too is factual. (07)
My issue was with the lead in:
> One of the primary reasons ebXML failed was because ... (08)
That is not fact. That is your expert opinion. (09)
My opinion, which is based on dealing with the manufacturing business
people who are actively operating e-business activities, is that ebXML
failed primarily because it did not address the e-business *business*
problem. The emphasis in ebXML was on the "XML" and the "e" but not on
the "b". And it was the "b" part -- actual support of
interorganizational business processes, as designed by business people
to achieve business goals -- that had to work. (010)
Now that may be because your technical architecture never had a chance
to work, but somehow I doubt that. (011)
Right now, I am fighting this same battle on another front. We really
need to get a whole technical generation out of the habit of thinking
that "business process" is a synonym for workflow, or EAI script, or
messaging protocol. A real business process is a graph of expected
events and actions leading to a business goal, occasionally revised by
occurrences of unexpected events and actions. And the secret to
understanding where you are in a real business process is having a
vocabulary that expresses the state of your world -- the known, the
presumed, and the unknown. (And by "unknown", I mean classes of things
you know about, but don't know the relevant instances, or instances you
know about, but don't know the relevant state.) The process graph can
be modified ad hoc to get from the state you are in to the state you
want, and in business, that happens often. (012)
And the reason why this is important in the Ontolog Forum is that the
vocabularies -- the "ontologies" -- are critical to being able to
discuss that state with a partner organization who has a somewhat
different view. (013)
At least the current Core Components activity is directed toward solving
one of the critical problems -- the common vocabulary. And the approach
is interesting -- the "standard lower ontology" from which higher
concepts are built. That said, I think much more of that effort is also
being spent on technical details than semantics. "You can take the boy
out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy." (014)
-Ed (015)
"People in the information industry seem to have a great deal of
difficulty keeping a conversation at a common level of abstraction for
any length of time."
-- Brian Meek (016)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 (017)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (018)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (019)
|