RE: Update on BP/CC

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

Mark Hale wrote:
>Have you heard anything back from GCI?  I still have not been able to
>successfully get a response from them.  I just don't think that it makes
>sense to demo using a contrived payload.  Pieces of the BP model they've
>given us can be shown in parallel to the aligned AIAG BP process.

I wouldn't call the GCI stuff "contrived".  They started with
the TMWG UMM methodology (from the parent org of ebXML)
before the ebXML BP and CC specs were ready.  They have
publicly stated their intention to be fully compliant, and it is
not their fault that they are not fully compliant now.  If the
ebXML specs had been ready, they would be.  

To repeat my statement from a previous thread, I think it is
wonderful that we have two different industry groups that
want to provide POC content, and I understood it would
be possible to use both.  

>I participate in the BP telecon yesterday where the BP meta-model using the
>materials management example was walked through.  An impressive amount of
>work has been done.  

Thanks.

>I spoke directly with Sig yesterday and he and Bob
>Haugen are working on the final CC pieces.  

I think that's Sig and Jim Clark.  Jim did most of the work on
the BP example model, too.

-Bob Haugen