RE: FWD: re: POC liaison report

[Rachel Foerster <rachelf@ix.netcom.com>]

David,

You're way off the mark on your statement about the title of the POC
Proposal. I don't know what document you're looking at, but I have in front
of me ebXML POC Proposal v1.0 and nowhere on the cover page is RosettaNet
mentioned, One only gets to that where the scenario is being defined and
described.

Cool your jets, guy! Have some trust in the POC team and the StC on this.

Rachel

|-----Original Message-----
|From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
|Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 8:49 PM
|To: Klaus-Dieter Naujok
|Cc: Tim McGrath; ebxml repository; ebxml coordination; ebxml
|Archtecture; Dick Raman; nick.kassem@eng.sun.com
|Subject: Re: FWD: re: POC liaison report
|
|
|Message text written by Klaus-Dieter Naujok
|>
|In regard to RosettaNet, it is payload only, the same way we used
|OTA in Brussels.  Reason being, we don't have a ebXML payload yet
|:-(
|<<<<<<<<<<<
|
|Klaus,
|
|Please - then lets concentrate on creating such a payload,
|and yes, that is one item GUIDE focuses on, and yes we have lots
|of other XML based payloads that we can use too.
|
|We don't need to depend on RosettaNet, and we certainly don't
|need a POC
|document that mentions 'RosettaNet Demo' as the title - instead of
|'ebXML Demo - ( payload - RosettaNet PIP3A transaction)'.
|
|Minor details perhaps, but some may note this speaks volumes here
|to the mindset.
|
|I presume the use of vendor and vendor product names is something
|else that we will not see endorsed?  A participants list seems more
|than adequate as in the past practice with all other ebXML documents.
|
|(i.e. A configuration diagram should contain names such as 'delivery
|server',
|'ebXML enabled server', 'trading partner A', and so forth).
|
|A configuration diagram should also contain how it fits into
|the overall
|ebXML architecture as in the latest release of the ebXML Architecture
|document, and refer back to that document where applicable.
|
|Some people may infer from this that I am anti-RosettaNet.   Actually
|I'm currently involved in implementing a RosettaNet PIP and interchange
|mechanisms.
|
|Therefore, while participation from RosettaNet is welcome, we have
|to be careful to distinguish between rational decisions based on
|sound technical engineering that leads to long term mature
|standards, and short term convenience based on commercial
|expedience.
|
|And we all know who usually loses, and who ends up picking up
|the costs over the years.
|
|Thanks, DW.