RE: Followup for BP/CC POC Sub-proposal

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

Mark et al,

Just to underline what Paul wrote:
don't think of the GCI and automotive examples as
competitors.  They don't; in fact, they have worked
together some, and common process patterns will be 
derived from their collaboration.

We are all lucky to have their contributions.
They make it all real.

-Bob Haugen

-----Original Message-----
From:	Paul R. Levine [SMTP:plevine@TELCORDIA.COM]
Sent:	Friday, September 15, 2000 12:07 PM
To:	ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject:	Followup for BP/CC POC Sub-proposal



Mark,

Farrukh Najmi indicated on the BP  conference call on 11 Sep. that the PoC PT
would  try to integrate key aspects of all the the proposals, including GCI,
when it meets on 21 Sep.   So, if the GCI metamodel is aligned with BP/CC, I
would highly encourage using it along with the automotive example.  The liaison
between GCI and ebXML is very important.

Regards,

Paul
---------------------- Forwarded by Paul R. Levine/Telcordia on 09/15/2000 01:01
PM ---------------------------


Mark Hale <mark.hale@ajubasolutions.com> on 09/15/2000 12:42:11 PM

Please respond to mark.hale@ajubasolutions.com

To:   ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
cc:    (bcc: Paul R. Levine/Telcordia)
Subject:  Followup for BP/CC POC Sub-proposal




I appreciate the feedback on the sub-proposal.  Here are some additional
thoughts:

- I encourage BP/CC team members that are interested in the POC sub-proposal
to subscribe to the ebXML-poc list to eliminate cross posting.

- I will work with Bob Haugen to see what is being done for the automotive
meta-model.  Bob, can you please forward me the material once you see the
latest docs posted. I am on the road this coming week and may not see them
on time.  I have Krishna, please make sure that I get your feedback as well
if you decide to work on this independently.

- The GCI material was used because it was formally given to the POC team
for review.  An inquiry was sent up the chain to see if there were any other
markets that were interested in demonstration with no response.  It is my
understanding that Melanie is working to align the meta-model with the BP/CC
activities.  Does anyone know if this is happening?

- The sub-proposal was intentionally written to separate the models from
their implementation (there are four scenarios in the sub-proposal).  The
automotive models can be included if:  we are able to include them within
POC deadlines (sub-proposal final is due 9/21, POC integrated proposal
10/12), the scenarios are aligned with the other POC sub-proposals (this
will be subject of the integration effort starting late next week), and the
scenarios are implementable by Tokyo.  I will work with Bob to see that we
can meet these objectives if the consensus is to include the automotive
meta-model.  Also, if the GCI meta-model is aligned with BP/CC, are there
any objectives to using it?

Please continue to send me your comments and material you have for
inclusion.  I will revise the report as needed.  There is a POC telecon this
coming week, please see the list for a dial-in to be posted.

     Thanks!

     Mark