Interoperability Summit: Good Intentions, Little Action
by Alan Kotok
|
Pages: 1, 2, 3
How to Integrate Standards? Let Me Count the Ways
Several presentations discussed ways that different standards groups integrate the work of other organizations. Sandra Dinetz of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, and participant in several financial standards groups, described how the industry has set a goal of completely settling investment trades no later than one day after the trade (T+1, in their lingo) by 2005. Settlements used to take five days, but recent improvements had cut that time down to three days.
This goal, according to Dinetz, has helped the industry focus on integrating the separate XML and pre-XML standards, covering the entire process from pre-trade to post-settlement interactions. Dinetz said the industry is converging around ISO standard 15022, but it still needs to accommodate the existing standards and account for international initiatives such as ebXML. It also needs to be prepared for any new technologies beyond XML.
Lawrence Leff of Western Illinois University showed how LegalXML had incorporated the collaboration protocol agreement and business process specification schema from ebXML to develop an XML-based contract form. Leff said that should a contract dispute occur, this XML contract would handle the contingencies covered in pre-trial litigation, where the vast majority of disputes get settled.
Gavenraj Sodhi of Business Layers, and a participant in the Service Provisioning Markup Language (SPML) project, discussed how SPML fits into a larger framework of security specifications, including the Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML), the eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML), and XML Key Management Specification (XKMS). These specifications, according to Sodhi, operate on top of other Web services and transport protocols. OASIS established a joint committee to coordinate the development of OASIS specifications (SAML, SPML, XACML), but XKMS was not an OASIS initiative and thus not part of the group.
Where's Web Services, Where's the W3C?
Aside from the security discussion, the only other presentation to address web services came from Sinisa Zimek of SAP AG, who described the Web Services Choreography Interface (WSCI), an initiative of SAP, Intalio, BEA Systems, and Sun Microsystems. WSCI describes the flow of messages in an interaction, often called a choreography, which operates on top of WSDL. Zimek mentioned WSCI as part of a larger discussion of SAP's exchange architecture.
However, the infrequent discussion of web services at the meeting contrasted with the frequent references to ebXML. Many participants were also involved in the development of ebXML or taking part in related efforts such as UBL or the EDI standards. No representatives from the Web Services Interoperability, the W3C, or Microsoft spoke at the meeting.
Next Steps?
A closing panel representing the chairs and sponsors of the meeting -- Karl Best of OASIS, Chuck Allen of HR-XML, Eric Cohen of XBRL, and Jon Bosak of OASIS's UBL committee -- tried to sum up the two days of discussions and suggest the next steps to achieve greater convergence. Except for reiterating the problems and noting that some of the standards groups may fall by the wayside, they came up with few concrete steps that organizations can take.
Cohen and Allen mentioned the Interoperability Pledge drafted at Summit 1 that encourages groups to voluntarily work with each other and avoid duplication. But the task ahead will require more than just promises to collaborate. Some of the Summit 2 presentations had suggestions on how a successful collaboration might work.
First, there needs to be more of a realization that a solution providing interoperability among the multitude of standards and specifications is far greater than the sum of its parts. The collaboration between ASC X12 and UBL discussed at the meeting, for example, shares the belief that new electronic business messages need to combine the business domain experience of EDI with the advantages of a web-based technical infrastructure. By themselves, neither of these standards will fill the bill. Together, they have much more of a chance for success.
Second, there cannot be any one owner or driver of a solution. The parties need an active network where all stakeholders can be connected and engaged in the process. The discussions at the meeting offered two examples of a possible structure for this network. One model comes from the committee writing the metadata for a standards registry. Karl Best of OASIS chairs the committee and that group currently hosts the group's web site, but OASIS does not operate or control the group. In fact, the web site will soon move to ANSI, another of the project's participants.
Another model comes from ASC X12's COTG, which serves as a forum for collaborating on e-business standards, but is not an ASC X12 sub-division. It also does not require that ASC X12 develop solutions recommended by COTG.
Third, interoperability needs to account for the complexity of business, which will not be an easy task. The presentations about interoperability requirements of the telecommunications industry and the DoD showed that any solution needs to address detailed variations in ways that different industries operate, sometimes supporting vastly different cultures within the industries. Also, in the discussion at the end of the meeting, the panel recognized vertical industries will have different business processes and semantics, thus any solution needs to provide interoperability among these industries while still preserving their differences.
Fourth, all major players and standards need to get involved, which means participation by Microsoft, W3C, and WS-I. Without all key players in the mix, the Interoperability Summits will be an empty exercise.
Fifth, there needs to be a greater sense of urgency. Sandra Dinetz showed how the investment industry set specific performance and time goals (T+1 settlements by the year 2005), which focused the attention of the industry and encouraged parties to make significant progress toward those goals. The Interoperability Summits need those same kinds of goals and incentives.
At the opening of the meeting, Eric Cohen of XBRL talked about his fantasy where a piece of business information can be entered anywhere in a supply chain, flow into a company's general ledger, then be reported out in any form needed by the company or its trading partners. Why not make Cohen's dream become the goal of these summits, in time for T+1 settlements in 2005?
- Beyond XML
2002-11-06 13:38:24 Alan Metcalfe - Interoperability: The need to define success?
2002-07-30 09:06:35 Man-Sze Li
