re: ebXML TA: removing Section 9.0, Open-edi

[Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM <srh@us.ibm.com>]

There is no question that section 9 can easily give the impression that
ebXML is
significantly tied to EDI, which could easily increase the buy-in barrier
and
result in limited success.

If we had to vote, I say remove it.
If we have to compromise, reference it in one short paragraph and move on.

>Remember that ebXML is designed to reach the SMEs that EDI wasn't
appropriate for.

Well put.

Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



Jeff Suttor <Jeff.Suttor@eng.sun.com> on 10/16/2000 04:36:36 PM

Please respond to Jeff Suttor <Jeff.Suttor@eng.sun.com>

To:   ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org
cc:
Subject:  re: ebXML TA: removing Section 9.0, Open-edi



>From the point of view of BOV and FSV we do need to explain where this
>comes from.
>We cannot just launch into this from out of nowhere.
>
>BOV and FSV is unknown to most people.   'Wasting' one page on setting the
>scene is a small price here.

I think that Sections 10, 11 and 12 cover BOV & FSV adequately.

>I say we keep it in.  Many, many, many more people than the in-group
>building this
>are going to read this document.  We owe it to them to make it flow
>coherently.

I think prominently covering Open-edi will be more confusing if the reader
is in
an ebXML mind set.  Remember that ebXML is designed to reach the SMEs that
EDI
wasn't appropriate for.


--
Jeff.Suttor@Sun.com      http://sun.com/xml
XML Technology Center    http://web.eng/xml