|Subject:||Re: [ebsoa] Fwd: Editors Action Item|
|Date:||Jul 6, 2004 6:58:29 am|
Joe, et al:
Here's my two-cents (OK, I haven't participated much so far, but that's why I chose to be a kibitzer/observer).
When this workgroup was launched, I gave two personal recommendations from a business perspective: (1)Keep it simple (i.e., for the CIO to read and understand) and (2) throw away the ebXML specs (not the ideas) and start from scratch.
The environment in which this specification is being built is much different than the "ebXML period". At least three of the major sofware vendors have already accepted SOA and have in-fact started to develop their frameworks that support it (.NET, Websphere, NetWeaver).
If the document(s) you produce are in serious conflict with those frameworks(and I don't remember seeing ebXML mentioned by any of them), then I believe your work will not be accepted.
So, I guess my answer to the question below is: 100%.
-------------- Original message --------------
> Any thoughts on the question below? > > Joe > > Chiusano Joseph wrote: > > > > Thanks Sally. I noted that you did not reference ebXML in the audience > > description (not saying that that is a good or bad thing - just an > > observation). This brings up the question: If someone did not - for > > whatever reason - "subscribe" to the "ebXML way of doing things", how > > useful to them is our final output intended to be? > > > > 100% useful? 50? 10? > > > > Thanks, > > Joe > > > > "Sally St. Amand" wrote: > > > > > > The draft I mentioned in yesterday's call. > > > > > > Hamid's paper serves as a good opening to address what I see as a > > > convergence and opportunity. As I said in yesterday's call there has > > > been an evolution on the business side that tracks the technical > > > evolution that Hamid described so well. More recent efforts to > > > standardize and quantify business processes have included > > > Reengineering and Six Sigma. SOA cuts across both tech and business > > > process. > > > > > > As I see it our challenge is to convey the scope, scale and provide > > > the means to achieve implementation. That is define the concept and > > > translate it into solutions that can be adapted to be operational. My > > > hope is that the spec will also serve as a communications/education > > > doc to all the constituencies. > > > > > > Anyway, something to chew on. > > > Sally > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Subject: Editors Action Item > > > Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:32:36 -0700 (PDT) > > > From: "Sally St. Amand" <SALL...@YAHOO.COM> > > > To: Matthew MacKenzie <MAT...@ADOBE.COM> > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > Attached is a first write of the paragraph on the audience for the > > > specification. Would you take a look at it, revise and add. > > > > > > I was looking at it to go in the Introduction at the end of line 72 > > > before the paragraph on standards > > > > > > Just a comment--I would hope we can have some discussion so we can see > > > where people are before we start writing the spec. Which is why I > > > suggested using the white paper as a basis for discussion. I think we > > > need to build some concensus and I suspect we are a long way from > > > that. > > > Sally > > > > > > Name: SOAaudience.doc > > > SOAaudience.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) > > > Encoding: base64 > > > Description: SOAaudience.doc > > > > -- > > Kind Regards, > > Joseph Chiusano > > Associate > > Booz | Allen | Hamilton > > -- > Kind Regards, > Joseph Chiusano > Associate > Booz | Allen | Hamilton