[ebxml-dev] Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] UN/CEFACT ATG "Generic Header

["Tim McGrath" <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

Melanie,

I am not sure if you are replying to me directly, or the UBL list, so let
me put my personal view (i have no organisational one).

My comments were to point out that I haven't see a clear case of what the
requirement for a 'Generic Header' is.  The 'information items' that you
list on your matrix are so similar to those of ebXML MS that I wonder why
we need them.  The only rationale so far is that EDI had them, so we need
them to.  

I don't want to buy into this debate, just get a clearer view of the architecture
being proposed.  Once again, the UML diagrams in the attached documents do
not add anything that either a message service interface or specific internal
business processes would not cover.

As Duane Nickull has indicated on the ebxml-dev list, this is an architectural
issue, not one that those in the ebXML MS team necessarily appreciate (from
their comments i suspect they just think its a business need).  My hope is
that coming out of the discussion with the ebXML MS group and the Architecture
team, you will be able to define the currently unfulfiled function that this
project addresses.   
>
As such, i don't think UBL has anything to 'sort through' - until we know 
what value this project adds,  it is just a distraction from our work.  UBL
is just about standard messages,defining the information necessary for a
business application.  it assumes that choreography and business process
modeling is taken care of at a different layer.   

Footnote:
My apologies for cross posting this thread (i hope it makes sense to you),
my objective was to address both the UBL and ebXML communities without duplicating
a long list of responses.

Kudela, Melanie wrote:

We (GH group) are also happy to work with ebXML and UBL teams to sort this through. ALthough we have no draft document yet, we do have a an assorted amount of documentation as well as a spreadsheet for incorporating the various ways standard bodies currently handle the attributes that will eventually be used to post the ebMS message or other message (EDI, etc.).

One way that we could enlist your support is request that the organization you are representing provide the input into the our spreadsheet. It will then be considered during our discussions in San Diego.

Melanie Kudela
Director, XML Development

Uniform Code Council, Inc.
Princeton Pike Corporate Center
1009 Lenox Drive
Suite 202
Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648

mkudela@uc-council.org
609-620-4514

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim McGrath [mailto:tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 12:35 AM
To: jon.bosak@sun.com
Cc: agregory@aeon-llc.com; ubl-ndrsc@lists.oasis-open.org;
ubl-lcsc@lists.oasis-open.org; Kudela, Melanie
Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] UN/CEFACT ATG "Generic Header"
Project

Personally, I am happy to trust the relevant parties to sort this out.
 my concern is that UBL not jump into this before the architectural
issues have been thought through.

I am encouraged to hear (via ebxml-dev) the ATG and the ebXML teams are
working together on this issue. so lets wait and see what they come up with.

Jon Bosak wrote:

>Folks,
>
>This is a very important discussion, and it needs to be happening
>out on ebxml-dev where people outside UBL can see it.  I urge you
>to restart this conversation there in order to get all these good
>points out in the open.
>
>Clearly this is shaping up to be an item of interest for the
>UN/CEFACT meeting.
>
>Jon
>
> 
>

--
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142

 

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142