Thanks for the thought provoking questions Jeff.
I will speak for myself below... Other TC members please share your
thoughts.
Collins, Jeff wrote:
>I guess I would ask the question, how seriously does the ebXML spec wish to tackle the ECM space as an interop standard API?
>
Very seriously. Today, with version 2.5, I consider it the defining
aspect of our specification.
Since the earliest humble beginnings of this work I felt that we were
defining a standard for managing arbitrary content described by
standardized metadata. There was great push then from some to focus only
of things *ebXML* such as CPP/A, BPSS, CC etc. but we resisted those
pressures and kept a generic, content agnostic specification.
It is my sincere hope that, in version 4, we fill critical missing ECM
functions such as complete versioning support and evolve to support
Semantic Content Management. This would take us to the next level of ECM
where meaning is associated with the content and metadata describing the
content. Inference is supported during discovery of content.
I hope that a year from now I will be able to say:
"ebXML Registry is to the Semantic Web what Web Servers were to the Web"
In this view, ebXML Registry is the Semantic Web Server in a future
world of the Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services.
>Is that an important goal?
>
Very.
>If so, why?
>
ECM is vitally important to every enterprise. ECM to date has focused on
intra-enterprise CM. In an increasing connected "Business Web Services"
world, the trend is shifting towards the intra-enterprise CM. Content
like superman can see through walls and leap over tall buildings as long
as there is adequate Access Control and Security checks in place.
Many medium and large companies (mine included) have several ECM
products within their various departments. Each product may be stellar
in its own niche but none interoperates with another. This creates silos
of information that leads to lost productivity and creates barriers to
seamless communication. This is counter to the "Business Web Services"
revolution.
These current interoperabilty limitations among ECM products is
unsustainable in the long term and customers will soon be demanding that
the issue is addressed via standards.
>And what specific business problem(s) have you identified or tried to tackle in this arena?
>
The business problem can be summed up with following examples:
-Different departments within a large entity such as a government
cannot share content easily unless they standardize on the same ECM
product used across the enterprise.
-When two business merge they bring different ECM systems that do not
allow them to integrate their content. A classic and routine example is
when hospitals merge to become one enterprise.
-Assymetrical B2B relationships: A large enterprise such as Wallmart or
GM wishes to integrate their suppliers more tightly and securely
directly into their ECM systems. This is made difficult due to lack of
standards.
-Symetrical B2B relationships: Business partners have a need to share
content in a secure mananer with peer businesses that they partner with.
Integration of their ECMs and workflow across them is needed.
-Existing B2B solutions are either Client/Server (e.g. SOAP) or P2P
(e.g. ebXML Messaging). There are no good many-to-many business
collaboration standards available yet. With standardized CM across
multiple business and Publish/Subscribe content-based event notification
based workflow i can see a many-to-many business collaboration. An
example scenario is one of Auctions.
>Have these been documented and discussed in detail?
>
I have not come across this problem being documented anywhere yet. It is
based upon my experience and anecdotal evidence from users and customers.
--
Regards,
Farrukh
Content Enable your enterprise with the freebXML Registry:
http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net/presentations/freebXMLRegistryBrochure.pdf
http://ebxmlrr.sourceforge.net
--
