RE: BPSS (was) Approved eBTWG project teams

["Welsh, David" <David.Welsh@nordstrom.com>]

Jamie's number (2) approach "approve a small-scale technical-changes only group project fro 1.1, which explicitly excludes material changes to models and objects." so that "the substantive groups -- monitored commitments, BSI,  etc. -- work the big picture issues with their domain-specific experts
for a while, before getting into a pitched discussion of what 2.0 should be." really makes the most logical sense. 

That's where my vote goes.

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt) [mailto:kkanaskie@lucent.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 11:52 AM
> To: 'Klaus-Dieter Naujok'; ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org
> Cc: ebxml-bp@ebxml.org; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org;
> karsten.riemer@east.sun.com; plevine@telcordia.com
> Subject: RE: BPSS (was) Approved eBTWG project teams
> 
> 
> Klaus,
> 
> Either works for me. From my view there are two issues:
> 1. An updated Schema XSD to reflect changes in the in final 
> TR version. The
> ebXML web site still has an earlier version that has since 
> been corrected
> and posted to the BPSS list. 
> 2. Changes to resolve the minor ambiguities in the spec with 
> respect to the
> use of isPositiveResponse.
> 
> I think both could be considered editorial.
> 
> Best Regards,
> ________________________________________________________________
> Kurt Kanaskie
> Lucent Technologies
> kkanaskie@lucent.com
> (610) 778-1069
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Klaus-Dieter Naujok [mailto:knaujok@home.com] 
> Sent:	Friday, August 24, 2001 2:36 PM
> To:	ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org
> Cc:	ebxml-bp@ebxml.org; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org;
> karsten.riemer@east.sun.com; plevine@telcordia.com
> Subject:	Re: BPSS (was) Approved eBTWG project teams
> 
> On Friday 24 August 2001 11:24, James Bryce Clark wrote:
> 
> > So I suggest that we either (1) have no BPSS group (leaving
> > technical changes to editors appointed by ebTWG exec, whatever it
> > is), or (2) approve a small-scale technical-changes only group
> > project fro 1.1, which explicitly excludes material changes to
> > models and objects.  In other words, do what CPPA is doing, and
> > put out a good, stable 1.1 which simply fixes any holes in 1.0.  
> > Let the substantive groups -- monitored commitments, BSI,  etc.
> > -- work the big picture issues with their domain-specific experts
> > for a while, before getting into a pitched discussion of what 2.0
> > should be.
> 
> Jamie,
> 
> Thanks for your recap on this topic. I would support option 2 as 
> being a valid one with the conditions identified by you.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Klaus
> 
> -- 
> Klaus-Dieter Naujok             UN/CEFACT/eBTWG & TMWG Chair
> IONA Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, Chief Scientific Officer
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.ebtwg.org/ob/adm.pl>
>