Re: latest Version; Chap16 Revision 2

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

<cclist trimmed="partial">to avoid suspected duplicates</cclist>

I tend to agree (yikes! yet another agreement;-) with David B,
Scott and others. The term we're using is Party, not only in
TR&P but in TP. In addition, TR&P is certainly not restricted in
its use by design.

Cheers,

Chris

"Burdett, David" wrote:
> 
> David/Klaus
> 
> Sorry. I have to disagree. What the world doesn't need is one standard for
> messaging eCommerce and another one for everything else. If you look at what
> TRP has actually done then, IMO, it can equally apply to both. Secondly have
> you actually read the original email thread on this topic. Please do if you
> haven't and then respond on a more informed basis.
> 
> Secondly, if you go back to the original requirements work done for TRP last
> January/February, the term used was Party NOT Partner - why change it unless
> there is a VERY GOOD reason?
> 
> Partner only really came along when IBM proposed use of their tpaML? So
> which should word should we use - the TRP definition or the IBM tpaML
> definition? If there are two genuine alternative how do you decide - argue
> it on the list (which is time consuming) or does some other part of ebXML
> make the decision - Klaus can you rule on the process?. What I am after is a
> single definition for a single "thing" - not two.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 8:28 PM
> To: Burdett, David
> Cc: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org; 'Duane Nickull '; 'Jeff Suttor '; 'Bruce
> Peat '; 'Klaus-Dieter Naujok '; ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org;
> Brian Eisenberg; Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM; Tony Weida
> Subject: RE: latest Version; Chap16 Revision 2
> 
> Message text written by "Burdett, David"
> >The reason was that, in TRP, "party" rather than "partner" or "trading
> partner" was preferred since the protocols and specs produced by TRP should
> be usable in a "non-business" as well as a "business" context.
> 
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> 
> Dave,
> 
> I can't believe I'm hearing this advanced as an argument!?
> 
> Using TRP in a non-business context??
> 
> What are we talking about here - me sending out chess moves
> in an online tournament or playing Vorgon Death Maze 3000 or
> posting telemetry from my amateur space probe telescope
> or 5th grade plant growing experiment data or similar
> something using TRP?
> 
> Total world domination of Internet transport by TRP is just
> not going to happen here!
> 
> Let's drop the 'whats-in-a-word' games.   Partner is the
> familiar and time tested term here.
> 
> Gore and Bush are doing plenty of this for us right now;
> let's stay focused on more important TRP items.
> 
> Thanks, DW.

-- 
    _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/    _/ Christopher Ferris - Enterprise Architect
   _/       _/    _/ _/_/  _/  Phone: 781-442-3063 or x23063
  _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/ _/ _/   Email: chris.ferris@East.Sun.COM
       _/ _/    _/ _/  _/_/    Sun Microsystems,  Mailstop: UBUR03-313
_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/    _/     1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803-0903