OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-coord message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: [Fwd: notes from review of QR report (Fwd)]

this was posted to the StC list today.

i am unclear why a public review is critical to PoC at XMLOne and will
seek clarification at the meeting.

i shall advise of the outcome.

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

ebXML StC members,

I indicated to Klaus that I would not be available for this call.  I've asked
Marcia to represent the Context/Metamodel Group in requesting public review of
the current version of the Specification Schema, which is critical to the
infrastructure POC at XMLOne.  In case Marcia can't make the call, please review
Karsten Riemer's notes below from the conference call of the metamodel team on
Tues, 16 Jan.  Also attached is the comments from the QRT and initial responses
to them.  Understandings were reach with Tim McGrath on the Tues. call that
should help in getting this document out for public review.  Following is
extracted from a message from Karsten to me.


Paul Levine

>From Karsten to Paul,

My preference, if there is a vote or anything like that (on the StC call), is
that we pass the
document in its current shape (version 0.87) to public review right away. That
will save us 2 full weeks in the review cycle. We can send out the attached
response document as a companion to avoid other readers raising the same
issues that QR raised.

If we cannot get executive/steering to release version 0.87, tell them that
Jim and I will have a new version ready for review by BP/CC by Thursday, and
ready for submission by end of Friday, and make sure that this still fits
timeline for approval 1st week of April.

See reforwarded notes below for other issues that may be raised in steering


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

Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:40:10 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
From: Karsten Riemer <Karsten.Riemer@east.sun.com>
Subject: notes from review of QR report
To: ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org, ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org

Metamodel team met today:

Review report from QR on specification schema.

Jim Clark
Tim McGrath
Bill McCarthy
Sig Handelman
Scott Hinkelman
Jamie Clark
JJ Dubray
Karsten Riemer

We were lucky enough to have Tim dialing in from Australia to clarify QR
issues raised and to discuss a strategy for resolving them.

We have not heard from Executive Committee yet on whether they will release
version 0.87 for public review. The QR recommendation was not to unless issues
raised were addressed.

The report and executive's view of it is likely to be discussed in Steering
Committee meeting tomorrow. Karsten cannot attend (in-flight). We assume Paul
can attend and will represent Context/Metamodel groups perspective.

There was agreement between Tim and the Context/Metamodel group (those
present) that the biggest issue in the report was the Multi-Party issue. Tim
was OK with our intent to treat Multi-Party in essence as a Package of
Two-Party collaborations for the infrastructure release, as long as the
document makes this clear, and that Multi-Party can be deferred to a next

Tim also understood the dilemma between an accellerated infrastructure release
schedule and the subsequent release including core component content, with
respect to examples including actual core components or not. Sig Handelman
promised to ping Mary Kay and Lisa this week for lists of core components that
may be fully defined for us to use now. We also agreed to update text and
diagrams to show where core components will fit in when they exist.

We discussed structured document vs. non-structured. We agreed to more clearly
explain that structured means that the structure is defined in terms of ebXML
core components. We will try to find another term so as not to infer that for
instance an EDI document does not have structure. It is fully the intent that
one should be able to express a collaboration in terms of EDI document

We agreed to clarify that we use the word SCHEMA in its broadest sense, not
just XML schema. We agreed to make diagrams on page 3 and 4 more clear and to
make sure text and diagrams are 'isomorphic'.

We agreed that regardless of Executive Committee's decision we will start
editing the document for possible resubmission by end of this week. If version
0.87 actually is released for public review, we will just include these edits
in cycle 2 instead, they will not be wasted.

We solicit reviewers of this revision, to be published probably by end of
Wednesday. Please volunteer.


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

Mac Word 3.0

tel;cell:+61 (0)438352228
fn:tim mcgrath

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC