[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: ebXML "failure"

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:35:26 -0800
Message-id: <C3B2C98E.B452%dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
To David ( in absentia)

These two points require further clarification:

On 1/15/08 10:15 AM, "carl mattocks" <carlmattocks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

“Those who would want to claim ebXML has "failed" seem to be very selective of the measuring sticks they stand next to it.”

DN: More precisely, the statement is vacuous without a definition of “failure”.  First and foremost, my definition of failure is that the whole worked as it was designed to work, as an integrated set of specifications.  This is quite true as no one has ever demonstrated an implementation that works with all components functioning in a manner that can be measured against the official requirement document.

 “They also fail to attribute the debt they owe to the ebXML work - and the basis of much of what they continue to work on today - for example while it may be called "SOA" - the concepts and foundation are very much ebXML because the fundamentals of electronic business collaborations just don't change because someone invented a new acronym for marketing purposes.”

DN: as I stated many times over, the WS-* stack includes much of the ebXML work. As such, ebXML lives on.  Also, individual components such as CCTS, Registry, Messaging, CPA can work very well independently.  CAM and UBL provide  much valued functionality too.  In that light, the original ebXML technical architecture mandated something like CAM and UBL, which only David and Jon Bosak seemed to have the drive to develop.  No “official” ebXML specification had this functionality, even though it was clearly called out for in the technical architecture.  Alone, this fact is sufficient to validate my claims that it failed based on the above criteria.

I was the chief editor of the spec and seriously doubt that many of the people making claims have even read the specifications.  I have read each spec numerous times.  If others had, they would clearly see that according to the above criteria, ebXML has failed.  True individual pieces are living and have great values in the overall maturity of IT, but I stick to my original claim.

Enough said on this topic.  Lets move on.  


"Speaking only for myself"
Senior Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc.
Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com
Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com
My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
Adobe MAX 2008 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/08/adobe-max-2008.html

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    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>