RE: Requirements Spec Review

["Rachel Foerster" <rachelf@ix.netcom.com>]

I urge all participants in the Marketing, Awareness & Education Project Team
to carefully read Mike Rawlins' message below. Please forward your comments
directly to me. I'll then accumulate and combine these are needed and
forward them to the Requirements Project Team as input into the ebXML
Requirements Specifications.

Thanks,

Rachel Foerster

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 12:54 PM
> To: anders.grangard@edifrance.org; annabelle.bullen@us.pwcglobal.com;
> bill.smith@sun.com; dick.raman@cab-edi.net; drummond@onramp.net;
> duane@xmlglobal.com; lms@wwnet.com; plevine@telcordia.com;
> rachelf@ix.netcom.com; scott.nieman@norstanconsulting.com
> Cc: sutor@us.ibm.com; klaus@templar.net;
> raywalker@attglobal.net; List,
> ebXML Requirements
> Subject: Requirements Spec Review
>
>
> Folks,
>
> The first comment period for the Requirements Specification closes two
> weeks from today.  The Requirements Team requests specific review and
> input from the other teams in the following areas.  Our
> liaisons to your
> teams will be working with you to receive this input so that we can
> include it in the next draft.
>
> 1)   Terminology - We would like to target this document so that all
> parts are reasonably understandable by all ebXML participants.   In
> several cases we have done some rephrasing or editing to achieve this,
> but there may still be some sections that have overly detailed,
> technical terms and jargon.  Things like "In no instance shall this
> meta-model be subject to implied specification using instantiations or
> derivations" come to mind, along with "wire format mapping", which we
> edited out.  Where such things still exist, please either
> rephrase them
> or add enough explanatory text to make the meanings clear.
> In addition,
> if we have taken out anything you feel is important, please
> put it back
> in.  But, please make sure that what you put back in is accessible.
>
> 2)  Gaps, Overlaps, and Inconsistencies - Please review your
> section and
> those of the other teams for these concerns.  We have already had
> discussions of gaps and overlaps.  There may also be inconsistencies
> between not only what the teams are working on, but between the team's
> requirements and the overall business requirements in Section 2.
>
> 3)  Section 4 Organizational and Procedural Requirements - Please make
> careful review of this section.  The last set of bullets, if
> adopted as
> requirements, call for follow-on actions by the executive and steering
> committees.  If you are not prepared to act on these, or if you think
> that there are others that are missing, please send include
> appropriate
> changes to these bullets in your comments on the document.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Rawlins, ebXML Work Group, Requirements Project Team Leader
> http://www.ebxml.org/working/project_teams/requirements/
>
>