RE: PIDX ebXML Software Effort

Sorry, "it does refer to any business-related layers" was intended to be "it does not refer to any business-related layers".

-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda 
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 11:04 AM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: PIDX ebXML Software Effort


Hi Roger,
 
Since the announcement seems to focus on the lower levels of the stack (transport is mentioned a few times), and it does refer to any business-related layers, I would be curious to know whether the PIDX considered starting from a purely Web services-based approach (SOAP, WSDL, UDDI, and all the various WS-something) and then rejected that approach in favor of ebXML, and if so what was the rationale behind that decision.
 
Ugo

-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:53 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: PIDX ebXML Software Effort



I thought you might be interested, as a sort of data point on industry uptake, that PIDX (the EDI subgroup of the API - American Petroleum Institute) is starting up a "PIDX Business Message Work Group TRP Specification Team".  This group "will develop a transport, routing and packaging (TRP) specification compliant with version 2.0, revision C, of the OASIS ebXML Message Service Specification".  I think that this is intended to be something along the lines of WS-I -- that is, some sort of additional constraints and interpretations of the OASIS spec needed to answer specific questions about implementation.   In addition, the intention is to develop open source software that implements that spec in the sense of making the XML required for the transport (not providing the transport itself).  See the announcement at  <http://www.pidx.org> http://www.pidx.org for a bit more detail.

Some background might be useful in understanding what is going on here.  PIDX has already put out a spec for procurement transactions (invoices, etc) involving oilfield services (which can involve real big bucks and complex terms).  As a matter of fact ChevronTexaco very recently brought online a pilot project using this spec.  The current spec uses RosettaNet 2.0 for transport -- for sort of historical reasons.  This current PIDX effort is aimed at replacing the RosettaNet transport protocols with ebXML.  The objective is to reduce the startup costs for small companies that want to get involved with using this technology.

If any of you folk are aware of similar or related efforts I'd appreciate hearing about it.  The PIDX people are already aware of Hermes (  <http://www.freebxml.org/msh.htm> http://www.freebxml.org/msh.htm).