[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. -- regards tim mcgrath TEDIS fremantle western australia 6160 phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142
- From: "Paul R. Levine" <plevine@telcordia.com>
- To: ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org
- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:11:09 -0500
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. Regards, 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 tomorrow. thanks, -karsten >----------------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: Agenda: Review report from QR on specification schema. Present: 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 release. 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 exchanges. 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. -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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC