Re: Fwd: draft of our proposal

[Nicholas Kassem <Nick.Kassem@eng.sun.com>]

Hi Sig,

Thanks for the update and I'm looking forward to getting the additional 
information in the a.m. Speaking for most of the POC folks, could you 
suggest a quick way of coming up to speed with the CC specs. On first 
reading of the proposal I have so many questions that I don't want to bore 
everyone with them. Is there a URL for early drafts of the specs ? If we 
could review the specs between now and Thursday then I'm sure the Thursday 
conf. call will be much more productive. Keep in mind we don't have to have 
everything in place for Tokyo but the pieces we do show needs to be aligned 
with public specs. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Nick

At 04:03 PM 9/25/2000 -0400, Sigmund Handelman/Watson/IBM wrote:

>Hello,
>
>The DTD's (and/or Schema)  and XML, are based upon the work of our
>Materials Management CC work, known as the "Automotive Team".  The sample
>DTD/Schema/XML will be attached to the POC shortly. There is also a
>document that CC has started to describe the Materials Mgmt effort and I
>can send that to you.
>
>BP has worked with us and we created the second section with the "meat" of
>the proposal with the help of Bob Haugen, representing the latest BP specs.
>And finally we will work with the RegRep people so that all is consistent
>at that level.
>
>An expanded  version will be on your desk tomorrow.
>
>Regards, Sig
>
>Nicholas Kassem <nick.kassem@eng.sun.com> on 09/25/2000 03:32:07 PM
>
>To:   Sigmund Handelman/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, ebxml-poc@lists.ebxml.org
>cc:   lms@wwnet.com, mblantz@ltvsteel.com, Lisa Seaburg
>       <lisa.seaburg@commerceone.com>, linkage@interaccess.com
>Subject:  Fwd: draft of our proposal
>
>
>
>Thanks for forwarding this Sig. Clearly, there is still a lot of detail
>missing but I think it's important that your proposal gets visibility to
>the entire WG so there can be a better and common understanding of what's
>going on.
>
>As for me - I would like to get some understanding of what the proposed
>payload looks like (DTD's, XML etc.) - is this public ? How is this
>proposal related to the CC/BP specs (spec. version #'s etc.) ? Just as a
>background, my goal is and has been to do Proof Of Specification events
>within the context of ebXML- hence the need for supporting POC with ebXML
>specifications. I have to assume that the Repository you are proposing is
>consistent with the RegRep work going on in the ebXML RegRep WG ? Is this
>correct ?
>
>Regards,
>Nick
>
> >Importance: Normal
> >Subject: draft of our proposal
> >To: Nicholas Kassem <Nick.Kassem@eng.sun.com>
> >Cc: lms@wwnet.com, mblantz@ltvsteel.com,
> >         Lisa Seaburg <lisa.seaburg@commerceone.com>,
>linkage@interaccess.com,
> >         Melanie.McCarthy@gm.com, sfuger@aiag.org
> >From: "Sigmund Handelman/Watson/IBM" <swhandel@us.ibm.com>
> >Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:58:36 -0400
> >X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML243/01/M/IBM(Release 5.0.4a |July
> >24, 2000) at
> >  09/25/2000 02:02:13 PM
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> >Here is the draft of what we are putting proposing. Addtional material
>will
> >be going into the document tomorrow.
> >
> >This proposal is based on Karsten Riemer's document, and much of the front
> >text is the same. The second part describes our scenarios.
> >
> >Any questions, please contact me at 1-914-784-7626.
> >
> >Regards, Sig
> >
> >(See attached file: ebXMLBPCCpocProposal Materials Mgmt.doc)