Re: FAQ document review minutes

["William J. Kammerer" <wkammerer@foresightcorp.com>]

Tim:

Thanks for the review of the ebXML FAQ.  I agree wholeheartedly with
most of the Quality Review team's suggestions in EbXML QR FAQ Aug11.doc
at http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-coord/200008/bin00004.bin.  The
original FAQ document  is ebXML FAQ-latest.doc at
http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-awareness/200005/doc00000.doc.
We've learned a lot since the Executive Committee was interviewed at the
Orlando meeting to come up with the FAQ answers;  we'll make the changes
and submit them back to you for another five day review.

Yes, ebXML is more than just message content.  We will emphasize
business process models, core objects, the Registry-Repository and the
Transport, Packaging and Routing (or "Messaging" framework).  Reference
to EDI will be de-emphasized or eliminated entirely so ebXML is not
thought of as old legacy EDI in new clothing.

Do you have suggestions for answering why XML is to be used as a basis
for ebXML?  We can talk about broad internet standards like XML, schema,
etc.  Help me out here.

Yes, B2C is out of scope of ebXML - we'll use your language.

SMEs' needs addressed not so much (directly) by exploiting open
standards, but because ebXML facilitates development of shrink-wrapped
solutions for B2B interoperability.  Will add section on reducing need
for up-front negotiation (e.g., tpaML).

We can now name-drop now that we have a better idea of the orgs which
will adopt ebXML framework, such as OTA and RosettaNet.

Deliverables and Milestones question will be filled in with detail as
you suggested.

Do you have reasons why ebXML will reduce costs?  Shrink-wrapped
software for the SME?  Reduced need for up-front TP negotiation?  How
does Registry/Repository reduce costs?

Is there any competitive advantage to using ebXML besides something to
the effect that if my competitor is using it and I'm not, then I will
not be invited to the dance?  This is kind of a negative message which
was always used to justify legacy EDI.  Folks won't buy the same
argument twice!

We'll change the EDI investment preservation question around to
emphasize that we're building on experience and expertise gained from
EDI.

Do you have reasons as to why an organization should join ebXML?

All negative spins will be removed as you suggest.  EDI will be
de-emphasized.

William J. Kammerer
FORESIGHT Corp.
4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy.
Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
+1 614 791-1600

Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
"Commerce for a New World"


----- Original Message -----
From: Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@tedis.com.au>
To: 'ebXML Coordination' <ebxml-coord@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 5:56 PM
Subject: FAQ document review minutes



Here are the notes i made during our document review last friday.

technically, we are supposed to respond by Friday - so i suggest i
collect any comments/changes by email and send the final copy to the MAE
and STC lists on Friday.
--
regards
tim mcgrath
TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142