RE: minutes of Dec. 6-8 TP team F2F in Boston

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

Software layers beyond the TRP have been and are continuing
to be specified by the BP group.  The "specification schema"
worked on last week in Boston is one step in extending the
business-level specs in the BP metamodel to something
that will work with the TP (CPA?) specs.  Jim Clark is also
writing a document that makes explicit what has been an
implicit series of discussion about an ebXML protocol stack.
(Similar to Scott Hinkleman's "conceptual layers" in a 
recent message to the TP and other lists.)  
While the protocol stack crosses the boundaries of several
ebXML work  groups (TRP, TP and BP), this document
could be a place to specify BSI-like software.
There is also a pair of communicating state machines
in the current BP metamodel that could be part
of the specs for a BSI.  In addition, of course, to 
Stefano's excellent documents on the same theme,
which contribute to the same end.

I think if there is no spec for the runtime software,
there will not be interoperability of business processes,
and so ebXML will not be any different from XML-EDI -
just document transport.  (That is also how I interpret
Marty's statement about first-to-market setting the
"standard".)

Regards,
Bob Haugen

-----Original Message-----
From:	Martin W Sachs [SMTP:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
Sent:	Thursday, December 14, 2000 8:12 AM
To:	stefano.pogliani@sun.com
Cc:	ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org; ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:	RE: minutes of Dec. 6-8 TP team F2F in Boston


The point is precisely that you need the BSI to implement the BP functions.
There is no place in the existing set of ebXML specifications to put the
BSI specification.  We have a lot of confused discussions about whether
these functions are part of TRP.  However they are completely outside the
existing scope of the TRP specifications.  I believe that a lot of people
say that the BSI is strictly implementation and we should not architect
implementation.  That may be correct.  If so, whoever is first to market
will have the opportunity to define the middleware interoperability
specification.

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



Stefano POGLIANI <stefano.pogliani@sun.com> on 12/14/2000 04:16:07 AM

Please respond to stefano.pogliani@sun.com

To:   ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
cc:
Subject:  RE: minutes of Dec. 6-8 TP team F2F in Boston



>From the minutes :

"Dale said that the Proof of Concept team wants to implement the BP
functions but the BSI is outside the scope of the TRP specification.  The
BP team needs a specification and a scenario or example."

     Could someone pls clarify this to me? How to implement BP functions
without
     the BSI ?

/Stefano

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin W Sachs [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 10:48 PM
> To: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
> Cc: Maryann Hondo
> Subject: minutes of Dec. 6-8 TP team F2F in Boston
>
>
> I have attached the minutes of the TP team face to face meeting in
> Cambridge and Burlington, MA Dec. 6-8, 2000.
>
> I would like to thank Lotus (Maryann Hondo) and Sun (Chris Ferris and
> Karsten Riemer) for their hospitality.
>
> Regards,
> Marty
>
> (See attached file: MinutesTP2000-12-6.doc)
>
> ******************************************************************
> *******************
>
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
> ******************************************************************
> *******************
>