Re: FAQ document review minutes

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@tedis.com.au>]

i am pleased you got something from this.

the plan was to accept these minutes within our group before releasing them
to the MAE and STC lists- but as you subscribe to ebxml-coord , you got
around the protocol... well done!

to speed things up (and as you are alreardy changing the document) i shall
post your reply to the steering committee and i suggest we await your next
version..


"William J. Kammerer" wrote:

> 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

--
regards
tim mcgrath
TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142

begin:vcard 
n:McGrath;Tim
tel;pager:+61(0)299633829
tel;cell:+61 (0)438352228
tel;fax:+61(0)893352142
tel;work:+61(0)893352228
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:tmcgrath@tedis.com.au 
x-mozilla-cpt:;-19376
fn:tim mcgrath
end:vcard