Re: Microsoft Refuses to support ebXML

Jim,

I'm not sure that I understand your comment regarding OASIS. Perhaps you
view OASIS as the primary backer of ebXML and hence they don't back
SOAP/WSDL/UDDI? That's clearly a misperception -- especially since UDDI is
at OASIS.

Although OASIS was one of the two sponsors of the original ebXML initiative,
it's inapproriate to think that OASIS supports ebXML over SOAP/WSDL/UDDI.
OASIS is a very open standardization group.  Any member can launch a new
standardization effort. There's no requirement for consistency and no
restriction against competitive activities. For example, both UDDI and ebXML
RegRep are at OASIS.

There are quite a few SOAP/WSDL/UDDI-oriented technical committees at OASIS
(they definitely out-number the 4 ebXML committees)-- including UDDI, WSS
(security), DSS (digital signatures), WSRM (reliable messaging), WSRP
(remote portals), WSIA (interactive applications), and WSDM (distributed
management). There are also a number of cross-discipline technologies at
OASIS that can be used with either ebXML or SOAP/WSDL/UDDI -- including
XACML (access control), SAML (security exchange), XrML (digital rights),
XCBF (biometrics), BTP (transaction protocol), UBL, (Universal Business
Language), and Provisioning. And then there are tons of application
domain-specific committees (Tax, Legal, Translation, Auto Repair, etc). Some
of these domain-specific groups are building on SOAP/WSDL/UDDI. Others are
building on ebXML. Most are simply defining XML message formats and
schemata.

In general, the protocol-level and basic XML technologies get standardized
at W3C, and the application-level and extended services level stuff gets
standardized at OASIS. There are a few exceptions: I'd have expected
Choreography to happen at OASIS rather than W3C.

In regards to the original question, I have never heard anyone from
Microsoft express any interest whatsoever in supporting any aspect of ebXML.
I haven't heard anyone from Microsoft malign ebXML recently, but body
language is usually pretty negative.

Anne

>
> Date:    Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:14:58 -0800
> From:    Jim Murphy <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Microsoft Refuses to support ebXML
>
> >- what IS Microsoft's position re:ebXML MS (I would welcome you own
> > personal opinion even if there is an official Microsoft view-is it
> > good/bad/don't care) ?
>
> Microsoft's GXA is a clear competitor to ebXML.  What's confusing
> in the fact that OASIS is also the standards body for WS-Security
> et al.  Microsoft/IBM/Most other Major Software vendors seems to
> be behind a W3C approach which favours the layer technology
> approach instead of ebXML.  The EbXML folks seem to draw from the
> existing B2C/EDI universe where most couldn't fathom a world
> wothout a 1:1 mapping to their current EDI/Other implementations.
>
> Jim Murphy
> Mindreef, Inc.
> http://www.mindreef.com
>
> You can read messages from the SOAP archive, unsubscribe from
> SOAP, or subscribe to other
> DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.

You can read messages from the SOAP archive, unsubscribe from SOAP, or subscribe to other
DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.