[Fwd: Report on the ebXML Business Process Specification Schema v0.87(Fwd)]

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

forwarded on behalf of karsten

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

---

• From: Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@East.Sun.COM>
• To: tmcgrath@tedis.com.au
• Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:31:56 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

Hi Tim,
I intended to copy the whole QR team list on this, but it bounced since I am
not a subscriber to the list. Would you share this with your team, please.

thanks,
-karsten

>----------------Begin Forwarded Message----------------<

Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:59:31 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
From: Karsten Riemer <kriemer@volcano.East.Sun.COM>
Subject: RE: Report on the ebXML Business Process Specification Schema v0.87
To: Bob Sutor <sutor@us.ibm.com>, Bill Smith <bill.smith@Sun.COM>,
        Ray Walker <raywalker@attglobal.net>, knaujok@home.com
cc: plevine@telcordia.com, kriemer@volcano.East.Sun.COM,
        ebxml-coord@lists.ebxml.org

To the executive committee:

I have seen the QR report on the Specificaion Schema on the QR list archives,
and understand that you are now doing executive review.

The QR team has done a very good job reviewing this submission.
I agree in principle with most of their listed findings.
I would like, however, to comment on a couple of them, since it will help the
executive committee make its decision. Feedback from executive committee and
QR team on these comments will also affect how the context/metamodel group
will respond to the QR report.

1. To the first bullet issue under "Consistency": The word "schema" in the
title of the document was a compromise term. Alternative terms might be
"View", or "Sub-Metamodel. The word "schema" was not intended to only mean XML
schema (or DTD). It was meant in the more generic meaning of the word, and the
document is fully intended to cover both the UML representation and its
isomorphic XML representation of the "schema".

2. To the first bullet issue under "Applicability": It has been an unspoken
agreement between BP/TP/TRP that we focus on two-party b2b for the
infrastructure release, and address more complex multi-party b2b at the first
possible release after that. However, the current specification schema does
support two parties playing multiple roles relative to each other, e.g.
buyer-seller leading to shipper-receiver leading to payor-payee.  This
question of two-party vs. multi-party for the infrastructure release could
benefit from an opinion from the executive committee.

The Content/Metamodel team will clarify the remaining issues directly with the
QR team.

thanks,
-karsten

>----------------End Forwarded Message----------------<

---

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:;-23520
fn:tim mcgrath
end:vcard