RE: BPSS (was) Approved eBTWG project teams

[John Yunker <JohnY@EDIFECS.COM>]

The question should be easy to answer by evaluation against the
requirements.

The charter for the original BPSS construction listed several objectives
including interoperability and suitability to purpose.  These alone (even in
this general form) demand that any subsequent release of the specification
have a requirements and approval process.

I don't see how you can do that without a group and associated collaborative
protocol.

If BPSS is being contributed to this group, and (as I understand) many are
basing products on its interoperable capability to identify process
associated configurations, then it is this groups' responsibility to address
suitability to purpose issues through requirements and release processes.

Subsequent major revisions are a separate issue, and should be addressed
with a more rigorous collaborative analysis.

Hence I vote for option 2.

Karsten, regarding your point about process around proposals, I agree a
formal proposal is required to launch such a subgroup, however this is a
discussion leading up to a formal proposal to create a subgroup, and as such
should be shared with the entire community.

Thanks,
John

-----Original Message-----
From: Welsh, David [mailto:David.Welsh@nordstrom.com]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 12:02 PM
To: 'Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt)'; '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


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>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.ebtwg.org/ob/adm.pl>