Re: [ebxml-dev] Article: Will UN/CEFACT torpedo ebXML?

[Klaus-Dieter Naujok <knaujok@attglobal.net>]

In response to Mike Rawlins' article, "Will UN/CEFACT torpedo ebXML," I
offer the following:


1.) The TMWG list email referred to by Mike Rawlins was misinterpreted and
taken out of context. The email text was, ³From a BP (TMWG) perspective, we
see CC as possible attributes of our Business Entities. Hopefully this issue
will be put at rest at our next meeting in Barcelona. If not, meaning if we
donıt define what CC are in our UMM Meta-model, they will become no longer
relevant in our BPI work and therefore have no standing in UN/CEFACT.² The
³we² did not refer only to TMWG but to eBTWG/TMWG at the joint meeting to
take place in Barcelona. Mike was not part of the background discussion
about this subject as it relates to TMWG and eBTWG. This is especially true
in regard to his quote attributed to the TMWG, ³define what CC are in our
UMM Meta-model, they will become no longer relevant in our BPI work and
therefore have no standing in UN/CEFACT.² Mike is apparently not aware of
the priority objective of the February joint eBTWG/TMWG meeting: align
eBTWGıs work with the UMM meta model. Nor was he aware that the CC project
team lead committed to provide TMWG with all of the information that was
required to include CC and its artifacts in UMM and its meta model before
the next joint meeting.
 

2.) Mikeıs article tends to be sensational, drawing from only what he felt
confirmed my ³widely perceived antagonism² to the CC work. The part of my
email that would show the reader that my objective is to ensure a positive
resolution in the joint Barcelona meeting was ignored, ³From a BP (TMWG)
perspective, we see CC as possible attributes of our Business Entities.²
The implication in Mikeıs article that there is a plot by TMWG or by me
personally to eliminate CC is erroneous and has no basis in fact, rendering
his conclusion useless.

 
3.) Mike missed my true objective: optimize the value of the CC work. As to
the perceived negative part of the email ³...they [CC] will become no longer
relevant in our BPI work and therefore have no standing in UN/CEFACT², Mike
missed the point that this was a reference to many conversations, agreed to
by key CC players, that we must ensure that the CC work and its artifacts
are part of UMM and its meta model. If not, CC just stand alone and are not
linked to the base specification that governs all other work within
UN/CEFACTıs eBusiness activities. This choice of words, using reverse
psychology, was intended to be a gentle reminder to all members of the
importance of getting the job done. In the larger context, the fact that UMM
forms the basis for UN/CEFACTıs eBusiness activities is reflected in the CSG
proposal for the new structure of UN/CEFACTıs working groups.  The quoted
email made earlier reference to this, ³One outstanding task is to link the
CC concepts to the UMM meta-model. Before that is done, we [TMWG/eBTWG] will
not be able to state where CC fit in the overall picture of UMM and
UN/CEFACT.²
 

4.) Mikeıs reference to me being perceived as being ³antagonistic² to the CC
work is a misrepresentation. It is true that I have expressed concern many
times during ebXML and eBTWG meetings that the CC work had not progressed to
the point where those not involved in the work would have a clear
understanding of what CC were and how they fit into other related ebXML and
eBTWG work.  Therefore it was, and will continue to be, my duty as chair to
mention such concerns during the meetings. However, not once have I
expressed such opinions in any of my public appearances (conference
presentations, keynotes, interviews, etc.)  The opposite is true; I have
gone out of my way to tell the world how important and aligned the CC work
is.

Regards,

Klaus

-- 
Klaus-Dieter Naujok             UN/CEFACT/eBTWG & TMWG Chair
IONA Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, Chief Scientific Officer
END 2 ANYWHERE                        <http://www.iona.com/>