Title: RE: [ebxml-bp] State Alignment and Web Services

Serm,

Monica answered one part already - let me clarify my statement here:

<snip>Can you expand on "...with profiles that can be shared across a user community" to why so?</snip>

I'm referencing here the ability to create profiles of QoS parameters and then also partner profiles (CPA) from a business transactional view - instead of a server / port / function view in WSDL - as I have done in the BPSS Request/Respond example.

Using BPSS you can build a model of an interchange profile - and then actual partners can simply state their role - and it will work.

In WSDL - if I send someone else my WSDL - they have to potentially do a lot more to make that work on their systems.

What is the bottom line here? It comes back to seat-belts again. If noone put seat-belts in cars, then society pays a price in increased medical and insurance costs.

If IV&I has only WS linkage - which is significantly more complex to configure and support - and with less clear QoS - then society pays a price. What is that price?

Here's the figures from NIST and KANBAN on that - suddenly requesting support for ebMS and WS in IV&I as a prerequisite is looking cheap.

Thanks, DW

1 Introduction

1.1 Business Opportunity

At the Automotive Industry Roundtable cosponsored by NIST and AIAG this month, it was stated that there is a $1 billion annual penalty for interoperability in the automotive supply chain. Our business case for IV&I takes a very conservative approach and examines only reductions in premium freight and the carrying cost of inventory. At a summary level for the industry, it points out that the annual savings of $295 million that should be realized from the benefits of using Inventory Visibility tools will be eroded by an industry cost penalty of $516 million if the interoperability problem continues. Assumptions behind these numbers are available in the Business Case spreadsheet in the Information Kit.