RE: FAQ document review minutes

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

Some quick comments re William's responses:

1. When did B2C get out of scope? It's my understanding that the full scope
of the ebXML Initiative includes B2B as well as B2C.

2. Re adopters of the ebXML specifications....what about the companies that
participated at the San Jose POC Demonstration? They've also indicated their
commitment to adoption. It's not just the dot.orgs that are adopting.

Rachel

|-----Original Message-----
|From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:wkammerer@foresightcorp.com]
|Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 7:02 PM
|To: ebXML Awareness Team; 'ebXML Coordination'
|Subject: Re: FAQ document review minutes
|
|
|Tim:
|
|Thanks for the review of the ebXML FAQ.  I agree wholeheartedly with
|most of the Quality Review team's suggestions in EbXML QR FAQ Aug11.doc
|at
|http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-coord/200008/bin00004.bin.  The
|original FAQ document  is ebXML FAQ-latest.doc at
|http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-awareness/200005/doc00000.doc.
|We've learned a lot since the Executive Committee was
|interviewed at the
|Orlando meeting to come up with the FAQ answers;  we'll make
|the changes
|and submit them back to you for another five day review.
|
|Yes, ebXML is more than just message content.  We will emphasize
|business process models, core objects, the Registry-Repository and the
|Transport, Packaging and Routing (or "Messaging" framework).  Reference
|to EDI will be de-emphasized or eliminated entirely so ebXML is not
|thought of as old legacy EDI in new clothing.
|
|Do you have suggestions for answering why XML is to be used as a basis
|for ebXML?  We can talk about broad internet standards like
|XML, schema,
|etc.  Help me out here.
|
|Yes, B2C is out of scope of ebXML - we'll use your language.
|
|SMEs' needs addressed not so much (directly) by exploiting open
|standards, but because ebXML facilitates development of shrink-wrapped
|solutions for B2B interoperability.  Will add section on reducing need
|for up-front negotiation (e.g., tpaML).
|
|We can now name-drop now that we have a better idea of the orgs which
|will adopt ebXML framework, such as OTA and RosettaNet.
|
|Deliverables and Milestones question will be filled in with detail as
|you suggested.
|
|Do you have reasons why ebXML will reduce costs?  Shrink-wrapped
|software for the SME?  Reduced need for up-front TP negotiation?  How
|does Registry/Repository reduce costs?
|
|Is there any competitive advantage to using ebXML besides something to
|the effect that if my competitor is using it and I'm not, then I will
|not be invited to the dance?  This is kind of a negative message which
|was always used to justify legacy EDI.  Folks won't buy the same
|argument twice!
|
|We'll change the EDI investment preservation question around to
|emphasize that we're building on experience and expertise gained from
|EDI.
|
|Do you have reasons as to why an organization should join ebXML?
|
|All negative spins will be removed as you suggest.  EDI will be
|de-emphasized.
|
|William J. Kammerer
|FORESIGHT Corp.
|4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy.
|Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
|+1 614 791-1600
|
|Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
|"Commerce for a New World"
|
|
|----- Original Message -----
|From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@tedis.com.au>
|To: 'ebXML Coordination' <ebxml-coord@lists.ebxml.org>
|Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 5:56 PM
|Subject: FAQ document review minutes
|
|
|
|Here are the notes i made during our document review last friday.
|
|technically, we are supposed to respond by Friday - so i suggest i
|collect any comments/changes by email and send the final copy
|to the MAE
|and STC lists on Friday.
|--
|regards
|tim mcgrath
|TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
|phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142
|
|
|
|