RE: TA-Section-6-Revision-WIP-0.1.doc

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

Regarding Karsten's reservation #1 below, I vote for Brian's original
language.

-Bob Haugen

-----Original Message-----
From:	Karsten Riemer [SMTP:Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com]
Sent:	Wednesday, April 25, 2001 6:28 PM
To:	Hayes, Brian
Cc:	ebxml-ccbp-analysis (E-mail); ebXML-BP (E-mail)
Subject:	Re: TA-Section-6-Revision-WIP-0.1.doc

Brian,
you did a great job.
If the BP team in general supports this rewording of TA chapter 6, I think we
have a great improvement of the overall TA document. I have two reservations:

1. It should say "ebXML recommends that the business process and business
information artifacts ....." (not requires) Alternatively we should expand the
wording to say that a subset of the UMM metamodel is currently part of the
ebXML specifications (through the Specification Schema, and that as UN/CEFACT
finalizes and evolves UMM we expect that additional parts of the UMM metamodel
will become part of the ebXML specifications, and therefore then will require
conformance of additional artifacts.

2. Rather than deleting section 6.3. move its content to right between the
current titles 7 and 7.1 and change title of section 7 to read "ebXML
architecture overview".

I will be sending out my rewording of chapter 8.2. shortly.

thanks,
-karsten

>Here are is my suggested rewording for Section 6 of the ebXML Technical
>Architecture specification.  I hope I have adequately captured our
>discussions on this matter.  Let me know if you feel I have not or can
>provided better wording.
>
>Cheers,
>Brian
> <<TA-Section-6-Revision-WIP-0.1.doc>> 



------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org