Hi
Stuart,
I'm
not sure I understand why EWG+ (good term!) wouldn't be responsible for the
BP/CC
specifications themselves. If by EWG+ you mean
some group under UN/CEFACT, I think
that's precisely where the business-related work
belongs. And since we on BP/CC are
working towards genuine 'syntax neutrality' it seems
to make sense that the development
of
standards, whether XML or X12 or EDIFACT or YAML, be done in the same place,
at
the
same time, by the same experts. The groups may not be as technical adept
at XML
as
they might want to be, but I'm sure that the appropriate technical people
would be
willing to work with us.
Mary
Kay
Re
- Definition of 'Infrastructure' correspondence
This raises an important question...there appear to be two basic
sides to the output of ebXML.
- BP/CC
activities - so called content
- Non BP/CC - what most call infrastructure (even
if the glossary doesnt)
However,
my belief is that it is not this sort of split (CC/BP vs non CC/BP) which is
important. The split which i believe is important
is:
-
Specifications for the whole of ebXML
- Content
which is built by using the specifications (in reality this means BP
(process catalogues) and CC (Core component
catalogues))
The
difference with the top view is that BP/CC activities also contain
specifications and the development of these specifications are interlinked
with other ebXML specifications and it would be illogical to split
the two up. Splitting away the content is far easier to
boundary.
Thus, in
conjunction with the 'where next' discussion...this logic would suggest that
all specifications, guidance material etc would logically go to OASIS, and
the content/catalogues which related to these specifications is performed by
EWG+. The main difference is that the EWG would not be responsible for
BP/CC specifications themselves.
Regards
STUART
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart
Campbell
Technical Strategy Director, TIE Holding NV
UK
Office T:+44 1270 254019 F:+44 7971
121013
Netherlands T:+31 20 658 9335 F:+31 20 658
9901
Global M:+44 7970
429251
E:stuart.campbell@TIEGlobal.com
W:www.TIEglobal.com
P:www.stuartcampbell.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original
Message-----
From: agrangard@nycall.com
[mailto:anders.grangard@edifrance.org]
Sent: Monday, February 26,
2001 14:27
To: Lynne Rosenthal; ebXML-Architecture
List
Subject: Re: ebXML glossary
The term ebXML Infrastructure has been used with
different meanings within ebXML. We decided in Vancouver to stick with the
interpretation of the TA specification, i.e. meaning the entire
framework. If we feel we need to distinguish between the BOV and FSV
views, we should either use these terms or come up with new
ones.
Anders
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001
1:29 PM
Subject: Re: ebXML glossary
It probably should be noted, that the
definition for ebXML Infrastructure is not consistent with the way it
was used during the Thursday meeting (in Vancouver) regarding the
future of ebXML. At that meeting, Infrastructure was used to
indicate those ebXML specifications that would probably go under OASIS -
that is, Reg/Rep, TRP, and Trading Partners. The current
glossary definition states that the Infrastructure is ALL the
specifications.
Lynne
At 01:04 PM 2/22/01 +0100,
agrangard@nycall.com wrote:
Content-type:
text/plain
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by
ridley.nist.gov id f1MCE8B02801
Attached you will find the
updated ebXML glossary to be voted at the next
steering committee
conference call.
Anders Grangard
Edifrance
Ingénieur
- Consultant en Commerce électronique
Tel: +33 (0)1 42 91 62
24
http://www.edifrance.org