[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Why isn't Core Components an ebXML Specification?
i am not sure it requires too much courage. whilst i cannot speak for the OASIS or UN/CEFACT or ebXML Exeuctive, as the Team Lead for ebXML Quality Review(retired), I can explain what happend. There are three categories of ebXML documents... A "Technical Specification"has material that fulfils requirements of the ebXML Requirements document. It has been through at least two internal (to ebXML) and external review and comment periods before approval by the ebXML Plenary. A "Technical Report" contains either guidelines (information to guide in the interpretation or implementation of ebXML concepts) or catalogues (foundation material based on ebXML Technical Specifications or Reports) material. A "Technical Report" has been through at least one internal (to ebXML) and external review and comment period. It has also been approved by the relevant ebXML project team and accepted by the ebXML Plenary. There is also a "White Paper" document that represents a snapshot of on-going work within this Project Team. This may not have had any public review or comments but has been approved by the relevant ebXML Project Team and accepted by the ebXML Steering Committee. The decision on document categorisation for core components was based on the fact that some of documents were obviously catalogues or overiews/guidelines. In addition, there were some documents where the material had not yet been developed to a stage where it explicitly and unambiguously addresses the ebXML Requirements in this area. That is, it is not at the stage of a "specification", that can be used to implement ebXML conformant solutions. In addition, most of this material had only been through one round of internal and external review and comment before the closing Plenary meeting. Therefore, the Quality Review team recommended these documents also be categorised as "technical reports". So, in the main, there was a procedural difference, but it also reflects the need for on-going work within the core components area. A broader interpretation of this would be, "we feel we are on the right track , but not there yet." Had the ebXML team continued, then we would have expected this material would have matured into ebXML "technical specifications". This work will still happen, but under the stewardship of UN/CEFACT. There, i said it! and i am not at all embarassed. PS. I am glad to see you are assisting with this on-going work. Todd Boyle wrote: > Why are the Core Components technologies called "Reports"? > There is not a single piece of the entire Core Components > work products listed in the "Specifications". > http://www.ebxml.org/specs/index.htm > > The press release is: > http://www.ebxml.org/news/pr_20010514.htm > > Was this a problem of incompleteness and quality, or did the > governing executives OASIS and UN/CEFACT see a systematic problem > or flaw in the whole approach? > > Is there a better, competing technology? > > Was the competing school of thought based on emerging technologies, > or based on backward compatibility issues? What are the key > factors that prevented any consensus to approve Core Components > as a specification ? Language or national differences? Were > dependencies on particular software vendors discovered in the spec? > > The answers to these questions are important to future work > and the architecture decisions of many organizations outside > of ebXML. Many of us will appreciate it if executives of ebXML > or its governing OASIS or UN/CEFACT will have the courage to > address these issues in writing -- or -- have they already > done that, someplace? > > Todd > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > "unsubscribe" in the body to: email@example.com -- regards tim mcgrath TEDIS fremantle western australia 6160 phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142
Powered by eList eXpress LLC