- From: Anders W. Tell <opensource@toolsmiths.se>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:38:21 +0200
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
- Cc: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Hi Ugo, One of the initiatives is the Core Components work done by UN/CEFACT Techologies and Methodologies group. <http://webster.disa.org/cefact-groups/tmg/> (site is down for the moment) See download/general menu for downloadable documents. This groups work with technology neutral semantic interoperability with well defined mappings to EDIFACT and XML. /anders Ugo Corda wrote: >I recently came across an initiative that seems to address this type of issues. It's called Universal Data Element Framework (or UDEF - see http://www.udef.org/). According to its Web page, "the objective of the UDEF is to provide a means of real-time identification for semantic equivalency, as an attribute to data elements within e-business document and integration formats". > >If somebody else knows of similar initiatives, it would be nice to mention them in our document. > >Ugo > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On >>Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) >>Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 7:26 PM >>To: Champion, Mike; Frank McCabe; www-ws-arch@w3.org >>Subject: RE: Genuine interoperability & the tower of Babel >> >> >> >>I agree with Mike's answer -- but I also agree with Frank's analysis. >>Three or five years ago we sort of thought that the XML bandwagon was >>going to solve this by industry-wide efforts to define common formats >>for core data. I know this very well because I wrote various program >>plans based on this assumption that I now either live with or modify >>accordingly. Whether this did not happen because it is very difficult, >>or whether it didn't happen because there was no analogy to MS/IBM/BEA >>to force the process is probably not relevant -- it has not happened. >> >>This is a shame, but we must somehow struggle on. >> >>So, Frank, granted that this is a problem, and an expensive one, just >>what do you propose doing about it? Weeping, gnashing our teeth and >>rending our garments is probably indicated, but once we have done all >>that, do you have any other suggestions? >> >>I would personally not be very receptive if your suggestions involved >>starting over from square one in the WSA. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] >>Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 9:10 PM >>To: Frank McCabe; www-ws-arch@w3.org >>Subject: RE: Genuine interoperability & the tower of Babel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Frank McCabe [mailto:frankmccabe@mac.com] >>>Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 9:40 PM >>>To: www-ws-arch@w3.org >>>Subject: Genuine interoperability & the tower of Babel >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>>The tower of Babel referred to above is the huge number of >>>application-specific systems that can't leverage each other >>>because of trivial but lethal incompatibilities. There has to >>>be a better way. >>> >>>Before we look at solutions, it is helpful to see that there >>>is a problem. Is this analysis off the mark, and if so, why? >>> >>> >>I'm not sure. There's a danger in taking things one step at a time if >>the steps don't lead anywyhere, e.g. climing a tree as the >>first step to >>get to the moon. But there's also a danger in saying that it does no >>good to get to the moon if you really really want to reach the stars. >> >>Let's look at the world of 15 years ago vs the world of >>today, the near >>term future, and the future we want to shape. 15 years ago a typical >>computer simply could not communicate with another computer chosen at >>random, except very inefficiently and with all sorts of human >>intervention (remember zmodem etc.?). That's because there >>was no common >>wire level protocol or addressing scheme (in widespread use >>anyway). 10 >>years ago the Internet solved that problem at the lowest level for at >>least the typical commercial/university system, but there >>wasn't much in >>the way of common data formats or application-level >>protocols. 5 years >>ago HTTP and HTML solved those problems for human-readable >>text, but not >>for machine-machine interaction without human intervention. Today XML >>and SOAP/WSDL are providing the framework for machine-machine >>interaction, but there are a bazillion details such as transactions, >>choreography, security, etc. etc. etc. that have to be worked >>out in an >>ad hoc way. In 5 year we'll presumably have this stuff standardized, >>BUT THEN we will still face the problems that Frank is >>talking about. >> >>So, I think that the WSA document needs to focus on the issues facing >>the next few years, and simply make reference to the problems of >>automating the semantic alignment of operations and data that >>will still >>be there when the short-term issues are solved. >> >>So, there is a problem, but lots of useful work can be done without >>solving it, and there are worse problems to solve first. After all, >>businesses have been coping with these semantic mismatches >>for centuries >>while the mechanical aspects of business communication have been >>improved. Sure, at some point the mechanical stuff will be >>nailed down >>and then the labor-intensive, error-prone approaches used by >>application >>writers to align semantics will be the worst problems that systems >>integrators face, but there is a lot of work to do before we >>are in that >>situation. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:38:33 UTC