[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: FW: ebXML Specification Schedule
Nita,
My understanding is that the BP-Analysis team deliverables fit into the QRT
second round, which begins on Mar. 19. I attached the QRT plenary notes
from Vancouver. Slide 2 states the schedule leading up to Vienna. I
believe the BP-Analysis team deliverables are subject to every step of the
QRT second round, except a vote for ebXML approval in the Vienna plenary
meeting.
Regards,
Paul
(See attached file: Quality Review Team plenary notes Vancouver.ppt)
"Sharma, Nita" <nsharma@netfish.com> on 03/01/2001 09:54:49 PM
To: "Paul R. Levine (E-mail)" <plevine@telcordia.com>, "Marcia L. McLure
Ph. D. (E-mail)" <marcia.mclure@mmiec.com>
cc: "ebXML-CCBP-Analysis (E-mail) (E-mail)"
<ebxml-ccbp-analysis@lists.ebxml.org> (bcc: Paul R. Levine/Telcordia)
Subject: FW: ebXML Specification Schedule
Hi paul/Marcia
where do the deliverables of the BP-Analysis team fit in? Some of the BP-CC
deliverables are not specifications and are still included. So should ours
be.
[Sharma, Nita]
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@tedis.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 2:50 PM
To: nagwa
Cc: 'ebXML Coordination'
Subject: Re: ebXML Specification Schedule
nagwa,
this looks very useful.
just two suggestions.
1. if this is to help the project teams (and us) then we need to add, but
keep is different font (or some other differentiating method) the 'white
papers/discussion papers". in fact the BP/CC overview document is one of
these, but also the 3-4 BP papers, security assessment , the glossary, the
Registry Business Domain document, etc.. this could be a separate sheet,
but i think we would lose the overall picture if we did this.
2. as we have already discovered, the 'no later than' dates are not fixed
in
stone, this means that the first public review (26 Feb) has already gone
and
they ain't made it! i suspect the better 'y axis' would be the weeks
leading up to May 11th (our fixed date). the top row could be the optimum
path (the n.l.t dates), but when we plot the documents status we then show
where they are at the cuurent week. this shows us the slippage and slack
available. does that make sense?
nagwa wrote:
Here is the first draft from the specs status, please let me know
what do you think
Nagwa
_____
ebXML Specification Schedule
Team Specification Name First Cycle Second Cycle Status
In QRT Review
(n.l.t. 19 Feb) In Public Review
(n.l.t. 26 Feb) In Edit Period
(n.l.t. 12 Mar) In QRT Review
(n.l.t. 19 Mar) In Public Review
(n.l.t. 26 Mar) In Edit Period
(n.l.t. 9 Apr)
Core
<http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/core_components/core_components.htm>
Components BP and CC Document Overview Version 1.0
In QRT Review 1
Rules for application of Context
(ebXML The role of context in the re-usability of Core Components and
Business Processes) Version 1.0
In QRT Review 1
Methodology for developing CC
(ebXML Methodology for the Discovery and Analysis of Core Components)
Version 1.0 In QRT Review 1
Naming Conventions
(ebXML Naming Conventions for Core Components and Business Processes)
Version 1.0 In QRT Review 1
Core Component Catalog
(ebXML Initial Catalogue of Core Components (.doc) + Appendix A (.xls))
Version 1.0 In QRT Review 1
Methodology for Constructing Documents
(ebXML Specification for the application of XML-based assembly and context
rules) Version 1.0 In QRT
Review 1
Business
<http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/business_process/business_process.htm>
Process Specification Schema
(ebXML Business Process Specification Schema) X X Version
0.90 On track for incorporating comments into
version 1.0 for 19 March
Trading
<http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/trade_partner/trade_partner.htm>
Partners CPP/CPA
(Collaboration-Protocol Profile and Agreement Specification) Version
0.91 In QRT Review 1;
Editing on V.92 in anticipation of QRT and Public review comments.
Transport <http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/transport/transport.htm>
Routing & Packaging Message Services
(ebXML Message Service Specification) X X Version 0.94
Editing in progress;
will be submitted to list again on 6 Mar for final approval before
submitting to QRT;
will be submitted to Murray on 6 Mar also for preliminary check.
Registry <http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/registry/registry.htm> &
Repository Registry Information Model X X Version
0.56 Comments are being addresed;
editing should be complete on or before 19 Mar for QRT submission.
Registry Services X X Version 0.83
Comments are being addresed;
editing should be complete on or before 19 Mar for QRT submission.
Requirements
<http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/requirements/requirements.htm>
ebXML Requirements X X Version 1.03
Additions for TP have been done;
working on other minor changes;
on track for QRT submission before 19 Mar.
--
regards
tim mcgrath
TEDIS fremantle western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142
|
Hi
paul/Marcia
where
do the deliverables of the BP-Analysis team fit in? Some of the BP-CC
deliverables are not specifications and are still included. So should ours
be.
[Sharma, Nita] -----Original Message----- nagwa,
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@tedis.com.au] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 2:50 PM To: nagwa Cc: 'ebXML Coordination' Subject: Re: ebXML Specification Schedule this looks very useful. just two suggestions. 1. if this is to help the project teams (and us) then we need to add, but keep is different font (or some other differentiating method) the 'white papers/discussion papers". in fact the BP/CC overview document is one of these, but also the 3-4 BP papers, security assessment , the glossary, the Registry Business Domain document, etc.. this could be a separate sheet, but i think we would lose the overall picture if we did this. 2. as we have already discovered, the 'no later than' dates are not fixed in stone, this means that the first public review (26 Feb) has already gone and they ain't made it! i suspect the better 'y axis' would be the weeks leading up to May 11th (our fixed date). the top row could be the optimum path (the n.l.t dates), but when we plot the documents status we then show where they are at the cuurent week. this shows us the slippage and slack available. does that make sense? nagwa wrote: Here is the first draft from the specs status, please let me know -- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quality Review Team plenary notes Vancouver.ppt
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC