eBusiness Standards Convergence Forum

1. eBusiness Standards Convergence Forum Mark Palmer National Institute of Standards and Technology October 2004

2. Industry Problem • Many, overlapping eBusiness standards initiatives • Too many standards and the lack of commonality in the use of standards • lack of definitive guidance • Industry is wasting resources trying to monitor and influence multiple efforts • Industry initiatives came to NIST and asked for assistance • “It is getting worse, and we recognize that we are adding to the problem!”

3. eBSC Forum • eBusiness Standards Convergence Forum • Purpose: encourage convergence • by providing a neutral forum for industry organizations and standards development organizations to assess the current state of delivery and use of eBusiness standards and define specific actions to improve this situation • define priorities for encouraging convergence or achieving interoperability of eBusiness standards • define and complete actions to improve the development, synchronization and deployment • At the request of U.S. industry, sponsored by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) • Provides results to any organization working to deliver or use eBusiness standards, e.g., ISO/IEC/ITU UN/ECE MoUMG

4. eBSC Forum Participants • Representatives from key stakeholders • Industry Initiatives • AIA (aerospace), AIAG (automotive), ASHRAE (HVAC/building), CIDX (chemical), EIDX (electronics), FEA/GSA (government), FIATECH (building), NSRP (shipbuilding), RAPID (agri-chemical), RosettaNet (electrical and IT), STAR (automotive) • SDOs and Initiatives • ANC X12, ISO/IEC/ITU/ECE, OAGi, OASIS, UBL, UN/CEFACT • eBus S/W Testing and Certification • Drake Certivo, Drummond Group

5. Current Scope • All eBusiness-related standards are in scope. • current participants have interests in the complete business processes for the specification, purchase, delivery and use of products, facilities and services. • No direct participation by initiatives in the finance, health and legal • Assessing insights and conclusions for utility in all business processes

6. Early Accomplishments • Forced candid communications on competing / parallel efforts • Established mutual understanding of the challenges and value of convergence • Defined an initial set of essential tasks and established teams to work on them • Developed recommendations on representation of coded lists • Agreed to continue as the eBSC Forum (eBusiness Standards Convergence)

7. Current Activities • Document what is needed for shift to convergence • Develop eBus standards “Inventory Matrix” and consolidate eBus architecture frameworks • document eBus specifications, overlaps, voids, and opportunities for collaboration • Investigate what is needed in eBus standards testing • Broaden adoption of common XML representation structures for coded lists • Semi-annual workshops on critical topics: • April 2004: Service Oriented Architectures • October 2004: Alternate Methods for Developing Message Building Blocks and Management Of Complexity • eBSC web site for results: www.nist.gov/ebsc

8. Observations and Challenges • Camps of Interest / No Shared Roadmap • SDOs’ with overlapping, parallel projects • Need for a common, conceptual framework • understand requirements and available capabilities • identify overlaps, gaps, linkages • plan and coordinate projects • registry of standards and SDO projects • who, how, international; linked, federated,… • Barriers to progress (and communications) • competition between SDOs • perception that convergence erodes prominence • corporate IT decision makers resistant to further investments in “infrastructure” standards => minimal pressure on SDOs to converge

9. Current Activities • Working on priority tasks in eBSC work plan • Document what is needed for paradigm shift to convergence • “Inventory Matrix” and consolidate eBus architecture frameworks • document eBus specifications, overlaps, voids, and opportunities for collaboration • Develop common framework for eBusiness standards • Execute high-priority convergence projects: • develop common XML schema representation for coded lists • adopted by RosettaNet and OAGIS; working with UBL • eBSC web site for results: www.nist.gov/ebsc

10. eBusiness Standards Matrix • Many camps of interest / No Shared Roadmap • SDOs’ with overlapping, parallel projects • Need for a common, conceptual framework • understand requirements and available capabilities • identify overlaps, gaps, linkages • Started with common concepts for first matrix • Business Operational View • Functional Service View • Network • Testing/Interoperability

11. Interest in Common Framework • Q11. Is this model of eBusiness capabilities “stack” useful and sufficient for providing a generic framework for describing what is needed…? • Summary: There is general support for the generic model, although every organization has their own idea of the stack, e.g., support for real-time sharing/collaboration.

12. Lessons from the Matrix andNext Steps for Conceptual Framework • Matrix distributed to SDOs and initiatives to populate • Results illustrated the many interpretations of intent / purpose • More work on definitions and use of results • Multiple domains: Requirements, Capabilities, Solutions • Horizontal, Verticals • Open access vs orchestrated processes across enterprises • Working on Round #2: precise definitions and alternative ways to accommodate multiple views / purposes • Identify overlaps • Guide convergence • Conceptual framework for analysis and discussion on architecture, infrastructure and deployment • Drawing from industry initiatives on the topic • CIDX, PIDX,and RAPID