Mark
Mark
Crawford
Research Fellow - LMI XML
Lead
E-business Strategies
Group
______
Logistics Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805
(703) 917-7177 Fax (703) 917-7518
Wireless (703) 655-4810
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.lmi.org
"Opportunity is what you make of it"
-----Original Message-----
From: Welsh, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 2:19 PM
To: 'CRAWFORD, Mark'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Editorial on 2 EDI/XML Standards.To add to Mark's remarks, actually Klaus's statement quoted was :"There is _NO_ decision to be taken by eBTWG nor UN/CEFACT, which includes EWG, in regard to selecting xCBL _OR_ VCML as part of its work program."where I'm reading xCBL to be UBL as basically the same thing right now; referencing Mr. Vollmer's article.-Dave-----Original Message-----
From: CRAWFORD, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 10:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FW: Editorial on 2 EDI/XML Standards.Greetings,There have been several recent postings regarding Mr. Vollmer's article in InternetWeek. I think it is important for everyone to see the comments of the ASC X12 Vice chair regarding this article. I should also tell you that Klaus-Dieter Naujok, in his capacity as chair of the eBTWG, has taken exception to the final paragraph in the article and has asked Mr. Vollmer to clarify that he did not speak with the eBTWG leadership, and that there is no decision to be taken regarding VCML.Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Berwanger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 12:02 PM
To: CRAWFORD, Mark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Editorial on 2 EDI/XML Standards.Mark,You may or may not be aware that I responded to this article as soon as I saw it. My response to Mr. Vollmer was as the Vice Chair of ASC X12 and a member of the UN/CEFACT EWG Management Team. I can forward you a copy of my message to him. Mr. Vollmer has a good history with ASC X12. He has published numerous articles highlighting work within the subcommittee and has provided an even discussion in each case. However, this article contained a huge error.Mr. Vollmer replied to my message. He stated that he stands by his conclusions. I cannot argue with his opinion, I do not share it but he is allowed his opinion. My real issue is the link that he established between ASC X12 , UN/CEFACT EWG, and the two alternatives. My message to him was direct regarding this point-- Neither ASC X12 or UN/CEFACT EWG was evaluating these two canditates as an interim solution. It may be that one or both of the candidates would like this to be the case, but it is simply not true.You ask about the source of the information. I asked Ken where his information came from. He reports that he does not remember. He suggested that some of it was derived from open source. I reviewed all the press releases from DISA and ASC X12 to make sure that we had not said something to allow him to come to a conclusion. We did not. I have queried the X12, EWG management team, and ebTWG leadership. No one from these three groups has spoken with Mr. Vollmer. None support the position. I am convinced that the comment was derived out of the June ASC X12 meeting, held in Saint Louis. Both the UBL and VCML representatives were present at the meeting and both made numerous presentations. Neither was validated by the EWG or X12 leadership.I am in the process of completing an article for Internet Week, coordinated by Ken Vollmer, that will explain the current positions of our groups. I hope that the final draft of the article will be ready by mid-week. It should appear during Labor Day week.What is the real problem? The article is in print and some will read this to mean that ASC X12 and UN/CEFACT support the Virtia solution. I am not sure how to undo this. If folks want to point to the article to validate one solution over another, and do not read the follow-up article, they can make incorrect choices. I invite your ideas for what else can be done. I have spoken with the VCML proponent with Vitria and assured him that neither ASC X12 or UN/CEFACT EWG was endorsing their solution. In fairness to the UBL group, I have heard nothing from Jon Bosak or his members. I do not believe that anyone from that group was responsible for the comments in the article.Ralph BerwangerVice Chair ebTWG, Vice Chair ASC X12, UN/CEFACT EWG Management Team-----Original Message-----
From: CRAWFORD, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 9:37 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Editorial on 2 EDI/XML Standards.Greetings,
I am sure many of you are aware of the recent article by Ken Vollmer in Internet Week. If you have not read it, go to http://www.internetweek.com/columns01/beat081601.htm
A few questions for everyone -
(1) Can someone please explain to me why the EBTWG must choose between VITRIA and UBL as one is a product and the other is an initiative, they are two different solutions focused on entirely different issues, and neither is a "project team" within eBTWG?
(2) Can someone please explain to me how Mr. Vollmer knows that a decision on selecting a bridge product by the eBTWG management team is expected in the next few weeks?
(3) Can someone please identify what if any communications have taken place between Mr. Vollmer and the eBTWG management to lead him to his conclusions?
Mark
Mark Crawford
Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
E-business Strategies Group
______
Logistics Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805
(703) 917-7177 Fax (703) 917-7518
Wireless (703) 655-4810
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.lmi.org
"Opportunity is what you make of it"
