Toby,
This is exactly the case I've been making for separating the solution space into tiers. We cannot boil the ocean here - and need to clearly delimit where the EMIX world begins and ends - and how it plays into the bigger worlds around it.
By making three tiers - you allow people to set their own granularity and marketplace focus.
How I'm envisioning this all working is a tiered approach:
- eMarketplace - bid/accept model and workflow
- contracts and commitments to provide
- EMIX device level delivery
I've included my previous posting on eMarketplace world view and EMIX below.
Essentially we point to existing work in tiers 1 and 2 - and show how to couple that into tier 3 - the EMIX delivery world.
That allows us to exploit existing marketplaces seamlessly without having to re-invent those wheels! And also allows us to support future marketplaces that may emerge with new financial tools and models in the future.
It also means we can stop worrying about world views and just go build the basic EMIX infrastructure...
Thanks, DW
=========================== Include from previous post =============================
OK - I remembered this now:
http://www.twiststandards.org/
Also - their submission to ISO looks interesting.
So some derived financial workflow pattern based on their ground work for EMIX seems sensible - possibly just an adopters guidelines or how to. Notice they have travelled over a lot of the same ground including safeguarding message exchanges.
How I'm envisioning this all working is a tiered approach:
- eMarketplace - bid/accept model and workflow
- contracts and commitments to provide
- EMIX device level delivery
Leveraging existing work in the top two tiers obviously dramatically simplifies what we actually have to deliver on the ground level. Another possibility for large suppliers is obviously to integrate eMarketplace model with existing marketplaces such as in EU and USA.
Thanks, DW
