So i directly comment to your quoted text.
> --- Text from ebXML section follows (its quite short) :-
>
> ebXML arose from the EDI community in an effort to reduce costs EDI by
> using
> the Internet in place of expensive VANs.
true, afaik.
>
> ebXML is an international initiative established by UN/CEFACT (United
> Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation) and OASIS (Organization for the
> Advancement of Structured Information Standards).
established and sponsored, afaik.
> ebXML is an open standard XML business specification that enables XML to
> be
> used in a consistent manner for the exchange of all electronic business
> data. The phase 1 spec was published in May 2001. Late in the drafting
> cycle, ebXML adopted SOAP + attachments as its transport.
soap is used as an example in the messaging specification, however, email or
http are used as examples as well.
> EbXML has a business process information model (BPIM) and uses UML and UMM
> for process modelling.
>
> The primary objective of ebXML is to lower the barrier to entry to
> electronic business in order to facilitate trade, particularly with
> respect
> to small businesses and developing nations.
imo, primary objective of ebxml is to enable trade not only with small
businesses and developing nations but with all sort of businesses, and i think the
primary objective is to use xml technology to enable the use of xml-enabled
components like xml routers and so on.
> The ebXML Transport Routing and Packaging specification released February
> 2002, provided support for SOAP 1.1.
>
> There is huge overlap between the technologies used by ebXML and SOAP,
> WSDL
> and UDDI. However the goals of ebXML are more ambitious based as it is on
> standardising business processes. This may prove to be its undoing as
> companies tend to have different business processes and generally do not
> change them without very good economic justification.
> While most of the industry is aligned behind SOAP, WSDL and UDDI, only Sun
>
> is championing ebXML while Microsoft refuses to support it.
As said, as ebxml is not a transport mechanism (like soap) but a content
description, these two definitely can't be mixed or compared.
> There is considerable momentum behind the SOAP, WSDL, UDDI camp and new
> standards are emerging all the time. For instance Business Process
> Execution Language for Web Services (BPEL4WS) specification was released
> recently with the aim of replacing IBMs Web Services Flow Language (WSFL)
>
> and Microsofts XLANG.
>
> Another view of ebXML is that it is a top down approach whereas SOAP is a
> bottom up approach. The consensus view seems to be that lightweight
> approach adopted by SOAP is more likely to achieve critical mass across
> the
> industry and that it will quickly add the superior features of ebXML.
> SOAP
> + attachments is therefore the recommended approach for xxx.
if you deliver ebxml within the soap attachment, it comes out to what i said
above.
What the text misses: ebxml is much more than just a content description. it
is also a specification how-to analyse a business process, how-to adopt a
business process and much more (i.e. process repository).
my two cent,
ulrich
--
Ulrich Staudinger http://www.die-horde.de http://www.igpp.de
JID:
----------------------------------------------------------------
The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
