Subject: RE: Oooh - Ouch! Is it necessarily the Truth if it Hurts?
Re:Perhaps Stuart Campbell would like to shed some more light on this? ***David, since you asked (but from a personal - not DAMSAD - perspective .... The ebXML community have decided that the Core Components papers meet certain requirements - sufficient enough to be technical reports but insufficient to be specifications. This suggests they are perhaps of greater quality/status than many thought they may have been but not as high status as many would have liked. Most of us would be naive to think that there is not more work to do on ebXML and the degree of activity is substantially more in core components than in TRP for instance. Many others have also seen this - eg xCBL initiative, observations from TA? group (one member?) etc etc and i think the DAMSAD report says essentially this but in a 'hard' way. With regards to Williams quotes.. ...our datatyping CWA has not had any influence on the development of ebXML, ***its a fact but thats life which insists on using a limited set of "representation types" based on existing EDI practices which are not formally defined, rather than adopting formal definitions of the type supplied in XML Schemas as recommended by the CWA... ***I think the issue is not so much that they are based upon W3C schemas but more the fact there has: a)been similar consideration by w3c and you might have thought that the two groups would have come to similar conclusions even if one went a little further and XMLified them - ie the fact that there are different schema representation types has nothing really to do with XML but is solely do with the types that were considered and selected (and then XMLified). b)been no formal definition of these types ...I had originally expected the ebXML initiative to provide a sufficiently understandable set of rules.... The poor quality of the ebXML core components deliverables, however, precludes its content from direct use in a CWA. ***As far as i can tell it is only the naming conventions which looks like a specification and as such in terms of specs this statement is right - eg i couldn't see any of these CC docs being accepted as a CEN or ISO standard in its current condition - but then again i never could fathom how the open-edi spec became one either :-). However, they are a great input to further work. The confusion as to how and when ebXML core component libraries will be created and managed, how these will differ from ebXML Business Libraries, and how users will access such libraries, makes it impossible to provide coherent guidance on the management of semantics related to ebXML, let alone advice of a more generic nature.... ***I certainly agree with this as do many other comments ive seen from those inside and outside of ebXML. We have a set of technical reports in CC but as to how implementers and users fit together and fill in the lines between their overview 'box diagram' (cc overview doc) is still an 'interesting area for clarification'. I look forward to your book david!
Powered by eList eXpress LLC