Title: RE: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0 ?
Ralph, thanks for the kind remarks. You are correct that our main
objective was Interoperability rather than Conformance, but this does not mean
we ignore conformance. While it is probably not possible to assure 100%
conformance to any specification, I would venture the opinion that the DGI
method actually gives greater assurance of conformance than any other. We
certainly scrutinize the output of every participant's code to make sure there
is no deviation from the specification. Since we had four participants
this round, this meant that there were at least four sets of eyes checking each
company's submission for any such deviation. The more eyes the
better.
The only other method I know of where conformance may be tested is some
form of Reference Implementation. This was the method used for years,
primarily because it was not feasible to do the kind of rigorous, full-matrix
testing now possible on the Internet. After all, a Reference
Implementation is still an Implementation and subject to flaws. Even
though, in the past, this was the accepted way to assure conformance (because
there was nothing better), this method does not always to produce
satisfactory results. Even if product A works with Ref and product B works
with Ref, there is no assurance that A works with B -- and it is relatively sure
they don't. DGI estimates that you will get 85-90% Interoperability with
this method, which is a good start but not nearly enough for
B2B.
In terms of cost, Reference Implementations for this type of application
typically cost in the millions, plus maintenance. DGI is providing a
comparable (superior) method for less than a tenth of that
cost.
You are correct, we do not focus on Compliance, but that is included in
our end result. Please ask anyone in the test whether we are out of
compliance with any part of the spec? Because of time and resource
constraints (and a wandering specification), we were forced to test a subset of
the total spec in this round, but that will be remedied in the
future.
Regards,
David Fischer
Drummond Group.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Berwanger
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:53
PM
To:
Cc: Bill
Morgan
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0
?
Lisa,
Before we start beating on Drummond Group we should
be careful to understand what they were offering. They were not certifying that vendor products
were 'compliant' with the specification. They were offering a service to
ensure interoperability between products of various vendors. This may seem like
hair-splitting (and for those who know me you understand how difficult that
is), but it is the simple truth. Vendors were not forced to engage in
the testing, they voluntarily participated. There was NO other venue and
at least this method provided a somewhat impartial third-party validation of
facts assumed by the vendors.
I agree that it would be improper to take
intellectual property 'donated' by various organizations and sell it for
gain. Like you and the rest of those on the listserv, we spend
significant resources assisting with standards work. It is intended to
produce an open consensus-based standard, not to advance the interest of any
individual company. I think we are sharing the same soap box.
However, in fairness to the Drummond Group, that is not what has
happened. They took the specification and produced a test plan which
allowed the participants in the test to exchange messages and to
systematically exercise their solutions to ensure that they worked with
similiar products from other vendors. In the end, those that
participated can affirm that their products can interoperate. They might
even say that their products are compliant, but not based on the results of
the test. That was not the purpose of the test. For the record,
I do not totally agree with the statements that David has made
below, but I cannot fault Drummond Group for their
actions.
Regarding compliance testing, a very different
process is needed. I exchanged messages with Prakash yesterday on this
topic. I am hoping that the OASIS IIC TC can move this forward. I
am prepared to assist anyway necessary to help this work progress. I think we may need to bring
additional resources to the table to assist the IIC. Additionally, there other efforts, like the
B2B Testbed, being proposed by OAG and NIST that can provide additional
support to this area.
Ralph Berwanger
Ambassador to
Standards
bTrade,Inc
---------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: David Fischer
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:05
PM
To: Seaburg, Lisa;
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Have you
implemented Version 2.0 ?
DGI has donated thousands of hours to ebXML over the last two
years. We are represented on five committees (two as editors and one
as v1.0 Chair) all non-reimbursed. The interoperability test ran
about four months with daily conference calls and constant work on
our part. We are providing this service for very little more than cost
recovery.
DGI is not taking advantage. Why is this any different
than someone implementing the spec and selling their product, thus taking
advantage of hundreds of hours of volunteer work? No one actually
volunteers for ebXML. Everyone has a business reason to be
here.
Regards,
David Fischer
Drummond Group.
-----Original Message-----
From: Seaburg, Lisa
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, March 01,
2002 1:04 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Have you
implemented Version 2.0 ?
Excuse me, but if this is true, the fee is $35,000!
Then the Drummond group is blatantly taking advantage of the hundreds of
volunteer hours put in by all the people involved. I would like to
get on my soapbox about this, but I won't today. I will wait and see
what other comments come from this email thread.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From:
Duane Nickull [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 7:58 AM
To: Patrick Yee
Cc: Cliff Collins;
Subject: Re:
[ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0 ?
The stated charge is a bit steep at $35,000 a pop.
Duane
Patrick Yee wrote:
>
> Excuse me, I want to ask a side track
question.
> What is the charge to have the
messaging implementation to be tested by the
>
Drummond Group? Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> -Patrick
> --
> Patrick Yee
> System Architect
> Center
for E-Commerce Infrastructure Development (CECID)
> Dept. of Computer Science and Information Systems
> The University of Hong Kong
> Tel: (852) 22415674
> Fax: (852)
25474611
>
> -----
Original Message -----
> From: "Cliff Collins"
<>
> To:
<>; <>
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:06 AM
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented
Version 2.0 ?
>
>
> Sybase has implemented Version 2.0 of the specification.
Our
> > product is also part of the
interoperability test that
> > is being run
by the Drummond Group.
> >
> > Cliff
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [mailto:]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:47
AM
> > > To:
> > >
Subject: [ebxml-msg] Have you implemented Version 2.0 ?
> > >
> > >
> > > Implementers
>
> >
> > > As I only have a couple
of outstanding non returned ballots the
> >
> specification looks likely to pass I need confirmation that
the
> > > specification has been
implemented and does work as we have specified
> for
> > > the submission
process. I would like this to be open so please post an
> > > e-mail to the list confirming you have
successfully implemented
> > > Version
2.0
> > > of the message services.
This is NOT a product announcement only that
>
you
> > > have implemented and tested it
internally. If you do not want this
>
public
> > > please e-mail me direct and
only the number of implantation will be made
>
> > public.
> > >
> > > Ian Jones
> > >
Chair OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC
> >
>
> > > Tel: +44 (0)29 2072
4063
> > > Fax: +44 (0)29 2072
4137
> > > Email:
> > >
> > >
> > >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this
elist use the subscription
> > > manager:
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use
the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
--
CTO, XML Global
Technologies
****************************
Transformation - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/foundation/
ebXML Central - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/central/
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
