RE: Example Scenarios Used Within the Aerospace Industry

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

>SMEs desperately need standardization at the BP layer.
>By all means keep up the good work and harmonize the ebXML 'protocol stack'.

>But don't slow down the CC vocabulary.  I would appreciate an explicit
>vote of confidence from the BP community, for the existing CC vocabulary.

Not being an official speaker for "the BP community", I can only give
you my personal opinions, which is that I can work with it.
I'm really interested in what comes out of the X12-EWG Joint
CC group, though.  And I think a bigger problem will be 
administration of "standards":  maintenance, update,
version control, etc. etc.

>I see no reason the work on BP should delay the immediate adoption
>of core components vocabulary for the PO, the party, etc. by
>SMEs, in simple HTTP interactions, TODAY.  

>In other words, the BP layers under construction should
>conform with existing vocabulary which is being implemented
>within the business document level.  Does the BP layer require
>changes in the party.details, quantity.type, identifier.type, etc.
>in the CC excel spreadsheet?

In my opinion, no.  But I am not a purist in any sense.
I fully expect things to develop top-down, bottom-up,
middle-out and all combinations of the above.  What
I am advocating is cycling through the protocol stack
so that, over time, things work together better and
better.  Continual improvement, not glorious
perfection.  Ok?

-Bob Haugen