Re: FWD: re: POC liaison report

[David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by Klaus-Dieter Naujok
>
In regard to RosettaNet, it is payload only, the same way we used
OTA in Brussels.  Reason being, we don't have a ebXML payload yet
:-(
<<<<<<<<<<<

Klaus,

Please - then lets concentrate on creating such a payload,
and yes, that is one item GUIDE focuses on, and yes we have lots
of other XML based payloads that we can use too.

We don't need to depend on RosettaNet, and we certainly don't need a POC
document that mentions 'RosettaNet Demo' as the title - instead of
'ebXML Demo - ( payload - RosettaNet PIP3A transaction)'.

Minor details perhaps, but some may note this speaks volumes here
to the mindset.

I presume the use of vendor and vendor product names is something 
else that we will not see endorsed?  A participants list seems more
than adequate as in the past practice with all other ebXML documents.

(i.e. A configuration diagram should contain names such as 'delivery
server',
'ebXML enabled server', 'trading partner A', and so forth).

A configuration diagram should also contain how it fits into the overall
ebXML architecture as in the latest release of the ebXML Architecture
document, and refer back to that document where applicable.

Some people may infer from this that I am anti-RosettaNet.   Actually
I'm currently involved in implementing a RosettaNet PIP and interchange
mechanisms.

Therefore, while participation from RosettaNet is welcome, we have
to be careful to distinguish between rational decisions based on 
sound technical engineering that leads to long term mature 
standards, and short term convenience based on commercial
expedience.

And we all know who usually loses, and who ends up picking up
the costs over the years.

Thanks, DW.