FW: REST, Conversations and Reliability

This off-line conversation is about EDI function, workflow and, to some
extent, priorities.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) 
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 10:23 AM
To: 'bhaugen'; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Subject: RE: REST, Conversations and Reliability


I have confirmed that the only function of EDI that involves any kind of
back and forth whatsoever is returning a receipt that the message has been
received.  The logic of the business flow is handled by some combination of
the back office system (SAP in our case but quite possibly a different
system on the other end) and people handling exceptions.  The EDI function
is in standardizing the atomic messages (purchase order, invoice, etc),
providing security and reliable deliver.  I can probe further into how the
workflow aspects are handled in practice in our company if you wish, but my
sense is that this is not what you are interested in.

I emphasize again that there is TREMENDOUS value in just this simple
function -- replicated a bazillion times.  That's part of the reason why I
tend to view workflow, orchestration, automated discovery and so on as "nice
to think about doing in the future", but security, reliable messaging and
message identification as "here and now" hot issues.

This conversation has been off-line.  Any objection to posting it? 

-----Original Message-----
From: bhaugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 10:03 AM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Subject: Re: REST, Conversations and Reliability


Roger,

Thanks,  I know lots of people do "workflow"
using proprietary systems:  Vitria, Iona, etc.
I think IBM has two, MSFT has one.

I'm asking about anything in the EDI standards,
or any standards with lots of experience behind
them.

ebXML and UN/CEFACT eBTWG have fairly
newly minted "standards" for orchestration
that come from a lot of EDI and RosettaNet
experience, but the stuff was not deployed
in any standard way by X12 or EDIFACT
or RNet or anybody else, as far as I know.

By the way, RNet tried workflow and found
it was a bad way to orchestrate conversations
between companies...

Thanks for checking, though, and please
let me know if you find out anything different.
I'm very interested and always ready to
find out I was wrong.

-Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
To: 'bhaugen' <linkage@interaccess.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 9:30 AM
Subject: RE: REST, Conversations and Reliability


> Uh, it was my understanding that my use case described pretty closely
a
> direct analogy to what our EDI folk do every day and what our
Eprocurement
> people are trying to set up.  I will, however, phone my source there
and
> confirm, maybe get some more detail, and get back with you.
>
> At a guess, at least some of the "orchestration" is done by people,
not
> automatically -- but then there is the Ariba buyer system and SAP,
both of
> which are pretty mysterious to me but I vaguely understand that both
have
> workflow capabilities.
>
> As I said, I'll get back to you.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bhaugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 4:05 PM
> To: RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com
> Subject: RE: REST, Conversations and Reliability
>
>
> Roger,
>
> You wrote:
> > I remind you again that there is plenty of practical experience in
how
> to do
> > this kind of thing in the EDI world, where competetion has
> historically been
> > limited by the constraints of using proprietary messaging systems
> instead of
> > the web.  We would like very much to see a standards-based EDI-like
> > situation where "everybody can play".
>
> Do you know of instances where whole business processes
> have been managed in any standard way in EDI?
> I mean, not just a single transaction like an X12 830
> with maybe an ack or an error, but the whole business
> deal as outlined in your use case, including the
> order, the delivery, the payment, discrepancy
> resolution, etc.  Where there is some kind of
> orchestration or logic tying the transactions
> together?
>
> I don't, but then I haven't seen everything...
>
> Thanks,
> Bob Haugen
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 8 August 2002 12:12:49 UTC