Please find below the answers to Mark Crawford's questions regarding the "UN/CEFACT Position Statement on ebXML". These answers were developed by the CSG and FCT members present at this week's meeting in McLean. CSG members did meet with Mark to get some further clarification regarding a number of his questions before developing its answers. To avoid the same confusion that surfaced during the last posting, let me clarify that I am the "messenger" providing these answers to the lists, I am NOT the "author". Yes, I am a CSG and FCT member, but have step back as much as possible in the process of developing these answers. Since Mark has cross posted his questions to a number of list, I apologize to those who will receive multiple copies of this response in advance. Regards, Klaus ============================= > 1) What exactly does "UN/CEFACT recognizes that ebXML is a very > important technology solution which it will continue to actively > maintain and support" mean? Please see the additional clarifications provided below which should eliminate any confusion regarding UN/CEFACT’s continuing support of business content for ebXML and other future technologies. UN/CEFACT has made a considerable investment in ebXML and will continue to support it in a manner equivalent to that afforded to UN/EDIFACT. > 2) Is UN/CEFACT now prepared to implement the requirements for > long-term management of ebXML as defined in the ebXML Requirements > Technical Specification? All of the specifications were intended to stand-alone. During the development period, management under a single joint entity was appropriate. Now that development is completed, each organization will manage the specifications for which they have responsibility. > 3) Is UN/CEFACT now prepared to reestablish the JCC with OASIS? No, the relationship successfully concluded. > 4) Will UN/CEFACT reverse its recent actions of removing ebXML > branding from what are rightfully ebXML specifications as agreed to > in Vienna and in keeping with the belief that they were furthering > ebXML specifications by those individuals who worked on them? No branding changes have been made to any specifications agreed to in Vienna; in particular, BPSS version 1.1 released October 18, 2003, is clearly branded ebXML. The current UN/CEFACT Core Components Technical Specification version 2.0 document title has a recommendation under review to add a subtitle “Part 8 of the ebXML Framework”. > 5) Will UN/CEFACT firmly commit to continuing to progress these ebXML > specifications in full partnership with OASIS to ensure that the ebXML > framework remains intact? During the last JCC conference call (which was after the announcement in August) it was mutually agreed that OASIS and UN/CEFACT would continue to separately maintain their respective areas of responsibility. > 6) Will UN/CEFACT commit to publishing its ebXML core components, > business information entities, and defined business processes in an > ebXML compliant registry as part of the developing ebXML framework? > (please note this does not in any way limit the ICG options - it only > states than any registry ICG decides on will support the ebXML > registry specifications in addition to any other specifications they > decide on) please also note that ebXML core components are syntax > neutral and as such the premise put forth that the ebXML branding > implies some syntax is misleading) UN/CEFACT is committed to storing and publishing its work (including core components library) in its own registry for standards development and review. In accordance with the CCTS version 2.0, ebXML compliant registries should link to the UN/CEFACT Core Component Library, which will be stored in a UN/CEFACT repository. > 7) Will UN/CEFACT commit to acting as a harmonization and approval > mechanism for ebXML core components from other interested standards > organizations? UN/CEFACT is committed to harmonize any candidate CCTS version 2.0 compliant core components submitted by any external organization that has agreed to work under its policies and submission processes. > 8) Will UN/CEFACT commit to working with OASIS to establish the joint > ebXML architecture team that was promised in Vienna? In Vienna each group agreed to have its own architecture efforts and agreed to liaise with each other. > 9) Will UN/CEFACT put in place procedures that will guarantee that > individuals cannot, under any circumstances, unilaterally change work > products submitted by working groups? UN/CEFACT is already governed by its Open Development Process (ODP) and UN publication rules that preclude such changes.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>