RE: latest Version

[Brian Eisenberg <BrianE@DataChannel.com>]

>>>>Comments below.

-----Original Message-----
From: agrangard@nycall.com [mailto:anders.grangard@edifrance.org]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 8:48 AM
To: ebXML-Architecture List
Subject: Re: latest Version


I have been out of contact with the real world for two weeks so I have just
read the specification. Great work! Maybe the butcher's knife cut a little
bit deep sometimes, but if this could help it get through, I will be happy
to discuss any reintroduction in Tokyo.

>>>>Anders - what do you mean by "reintroduction in Tokyo"? Our goal is to
submit version 0.9 (taking into account 

Points to consider to get it out;

1. TechArch consensus. I understand that this was sent out late Friday,
which will give our members one working day to review and approve it. Also
it will be an implicit vote rather than explicit, i.e. a silence is an
approval. I would therefore suggest firstly that all active TA members send
in their positive support - you hereby have mine - to the list server and
not only comments (although these are naturally still welcome). Secondly I
would suggest that we send it for review by the QR team on Wednesday. This
may be stealing time we do not have but taking previous experience into
account, I do not wish this spec to be DOA due to procedures.

>>>>Folks - we are working diligently to get the document into shape and
will try to address as may of the issues raised as possible before
submitting to the QR team. That said, we anticipate going through the formal
comments and review process after the document gets past QR and is released
to the entire ebXML community. 

2. Comments received so far. We received a number of comments from Nikola
(previously known as Nicola). They include some labelled show-stoppers. Am I
to understand these as important issues for Tokyo or that we do not have
consensus? Also I have in my personal copy of the spec replaced section 16
with Scott's proposal.

>>>>Anders - Please don't take Nikola's show-stopper comments in this
manner. His comments are important and will be taken into consideration as
we (the folks who have been directly involved with this latest revision)
transition the document to version 0.9, which will be the one we submit to
the QR team. We will attempt to address as many of his comments as possible
before submitting to QR, but due to the time constraints, we may not be able
to address them all. That said, pending approval by QR, we will most
definitely take all comments (including Nikola's) into consideration during
the "formal" comments and review period.

3. Glossary. I am not sure about the status of this document nor which is
the latest draft. Until I do, I cannot circulate it to the SC or others.

>>>>It looks like Colin will post the latest draft to the list this week. We
need to harmonize the glossary with the current version of the TA spec. As I
mentioned in my previous post, the TA document does not make reference to
gloassary terms (bold-italic convention) at this point. 

4. Issues from conference call. Firstly, my apologies for my absence. I
understand that we have two urgent issues for me to bring up to SC - the
scope of conformance and naming convention. I am at it. In the meantime I
urge you not to stop the work in these areas. They are both important and if
they would be reallocated to another group later, the work is not wasted.

>>>>Anders - I think we're in general agreement that w/r/t naming
conventions, the camelCase that Nikola recommended should be the one adopted
by all project teams. This needs to be conveyed in some manner in the
document. W/R/T conformance, at this point, Klaus feels that specific
conformance issues should be addressed within each of the respective project
teams. This issue needs to be discussed and addressed by the steering
committee. After we get a definitive answer, we can proceed in the
appropriate manner. 

>>>>We will be finalizing the TA spec (to be released as version 0.9), and
pending the approval by the TA team, we will submit to the QR team ASAP. 

Best regards, 

--Brian