OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-dev message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


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


Scott,

Absolutely.  I will post Mr. Naujok's comments when I post my rebuttal.

Cheers,

Mike

BTW - As you are probably well aware, I am not subscribed to the TMWG 
list.  Kindly forward this response to that list for me.

At 10:29 AM 5/6/02 -0700, Scott Nieman wrote:
>Hey Mike!
>
>Would you be so kind to update your web site with at least a link to this
>response by Klaus-Dieter Naujok?  When you call out people by name, it seems
>only appropriate that you include their counterpoint.
>
>Appreciate it!
>
>Thanks,
>
>Scott
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Klaus-Dieter Naujok
>To: EDI-L@yahoogroups.com; ebxml-dev; TMWG List; eBTWG List; eBTWG StC List
>Sent: 5/3/2002 8:06 AM
>Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] Article:  Will UN/CEFACT torpedo ebXML?
>
>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
>don¹t 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
>eBTWG¹s 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.) Mike¹s 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 Mike¹s 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/CEFACT¹s 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/CEFACT¹s eBusiness activities is reflected in the
>CSG
>proposal for the new structure of UN/CEFACT¹s 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.) Mike¹s 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/>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>

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



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help


Powered by eList eXpress LLC