Re: [ebxml-dev] Re: [EDI-L] Announce - Latest Article on ebXML

[Mike Rawlins <mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com>]

Sorry for not being more specific.  The article I referenced assessed ebXML
as of the end of the joint CEFACT/OASIS initiative, so the tense there is
definitely past.  In the broader sense considering that work is ongoing in
CEFACT and OASIS, it would be more accurate to use present tense of "has not
yet met".   The closing article in the series will deal with what's left to
be done to enable ebXML at sometime in the future to satisfy its key
requirements.

Dan Weinreb wrote:

>    Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:27:52 -0600
>    From: Mike Rawlins <mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com>
>
>                                 Can you discount my arguments that ebXML
>    did not meet it's goal of enabling e-business for SMEs?
>
> Your use of the past tense strikes me as strange.  The phrase "did not
> meet" suggests that everything is all over and we're doing a
> post-mortem evaluation.  Is that how you see it?

--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com