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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-core message

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

Subject: Re: Just what is a Core Component? Well, it depends on what "is" is.

Title: RE: Just what is a Core Component? Well, it depends on what "is" is.
Thank you for your comments.  It's interesting that you identify intuitive as a quality that the solution must have.  When I consider how long this problem has persisted, how to develop ec messages that are implementable by SME's [therefore, emphasizing interoperability], intuitive is the last quality I would have expected to be a requirement!
However, I agree with you --- it shouldn't take a phd for business experts to specify what their information requirements are.  I contend that the CC team has viewed this as one of its requirements --- at a lesser level than interoperability --- but, certainly a requirement.  It is this requirement which has caused the team to assess every tool, methodology, and technology proposed, and if the benefits didn't exceed the effort, the team did not enthusiasticly embrace the proposal.
As for the intuitive process you are looking for, it is the intent of the discovery and analysis document to provide this.  The next version you see will include 3 fundamental processes, 1) document requirements, 2) discover existing core componentry to meet your requirements, and 3) the analysis of the gap, those information requirements not satisfied by the existing core components, for a) identifying core support for the requirement, b) proper use of core by the solution, c) potential extensions to the core.
Clearly, the analysis is roughly equal to the tech assessment process in edi circles, and I contend that different audiences will use the information in the document, and a clear distinction must be made --- potentially different documents.  Either way, that is the document that is supposed to describe your intuitive process.  Please provide specific comments to the document as to where you think it needs improvement. 
As for the architecture, each document does try to describe the architecture at some level, but I agree that the current documents fall short.  The overview document ultimately is where this description needs to go, and I expect that what you see in Vienna & coming out of Vienna will be what you are looking for.  However, I will say that I don't expect that the architecture is intuitive --- it is the magic that makes it possible for the usage to be intuitive.  Users can use web browsers without needing to understand the underlying technology that makes their surfing possible!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 6:09 AM
Subject: RE: Just what is a Core Component? Well, it depends on what "is" is.

    If the definition in the glossary is correct, then I respectfully submit that the remainder of the ebXML CC documents are less than effective in that they do not provide an intuitive process with which to develop a core component, nor do they adequately explain the larger core component architecture you identify.   

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Shreve [mailto:lshreve@mediaone.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 11:58 PM
To: CRAWFORD, Mark; ebXML Core
Subject: Re: Just what is a Core Component? Well, it depends on what "is" is.

I think the question you meant to ask is, what is the core component architecture.  It is probably clear, having had discussions about context, extension, core components --- even in this discussion thread --- that there is a lot more depth to this issue than a simple definition of a single term in a very innovative architecture. 
But, if you are only interested in a definition, the one in the glossary is the agreed upon one.  I believe that it accurately describes one aspect of the CC architecture, the core component.
If you think there is more that needs to be added to the definition, your constructive input is welcome and appreciated.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 8:03 AM
Subject: RE: Just what is a Core Component? Well, it depends on what "is" is.

William (or should I say William JJ?)

        Very interesting, however the question still remains - where in the single expected ebXML core component specification (or in any of the supporting documents identified in the  is a firm definition of a core component.  The latest version of the discovery and analysis document still doesn't explain what it is we are discovering and analyzing.  Each of the ebXML CC Documents have vague references to the concept of a core component, but I have yet to find a clear definition, much less a more detailed explanation of the concept of core, in any of them (and that includes the BP and CC overview document).  I know the ebXML glossary has a definition ( lowest level, industry neutral building blocks which are used within the construction of ebXML business processes), but does that really say what we need to say.  I don't think so as one of the most frequently asked questions I receive from folks when I am talking about ebXML, is what is a core component.  And the questions are usually from folks who have tried to read the draft documents.  If they don't get it, what hope do we have of anyone using this stuff?

        If I am missing it, perhaps the editors can point out the exact location for my tired eyes (too many ebXML specs, not enough resting time!)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:wkammerer@foresightcorp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 11:55 AM
> To: ebXML Core
> Subject: Just what is a Core Component? Well, it depends on what "is"
> is.
> Mark Crawford asked "when are we going to see a standard definition of
> what a core component is?"
> There's stuff under the legend "Core Component Definition and
> Relationship with CBOs" at the ebXML Core Components page at
> http://www.ebxml.org/project_teams/core_components/Method.htm, which
> includes CC-Definition_2000-10-18.doc.  This was contributed by Mike
> Adcock, dated 2000-10-18 (see, I'm using ISO 8601 Extended Data
> formats!!). It seems like a workable definition, and is accompanied by
> pictures and diagrams.  Is there anything wrong with this
> document?  And
> if so, why is it still available at the web site?
> William J. Kammerer
> 4950 Blazer Pkwy.
> Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
> +1 614 791-1600
> Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
> "accelerating time-to-trade"
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org

[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