ebxml-regrep message

OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

Subject: RE: ebXML Registry and Repository teleconference minutes Thursday September 13, 2000

Message text written by "Nieman, Scott"
> David Webber
joined in at a time when TRP was being discussed.  The conversation quickly
became very heated and out of control.  Scott stated that TRP was a minimum
ebXML requirement (clarification post discussion:  this is primarily to
the overall functionality of the ebXML architecture). David Webber felt it
implied asynchronous communication and Farrukh explained that TRP also
provides synchronous communication.<



I don't mind being labelled the 'bad guy' here - so long as we are making
real progress.

I was confused by Farrukh's apparent return to the Requirements when 
that should have been long since done, and I'm still confused by some
of his emphasis, and interpretation of what the Tokyo PoC is 
articulating - my assertion - "Business Analyst Interaction around 
MetaModel use" is the clear message I took from SJ meetings.  This is
still an open issue - there are now five or six PoC proposals and we
REally need to consolidate these into two - 

one for TRP/RegRep/TPA  and the other BP/CC/RegReg/TPA
is my sense on this.

Farrukh and I clearly have our strengths and weaknesses, and a better
understanding of classification model as per OASIS / ISO11179 is
needed here from participants - the particular diagram that shows the
OASIS Information Model is absolutely key to the whole mechanisms.
That is a generalized model - and we need a specific eBusiness 
derived implementation of that.  The sections you noted from my 
document  2.3, 2.5 apply.   Since OASIS already have all this 
analysis done in spades - we should be cautious of spending too
much time on re-inventing this wheel - we need instead to re-purpose
this in our context - and reference their materials accordingly.  That is
approach I had followed.

Farrukh also intermated on the call that he had liaised with other groups,
I took this to mean his collegues locally at Sun on these groups.
Clearly his request via email to the CC and BP groups today for
exactly the same information I had been asking for all this week is
at least an indication that we understand the same path and needs 
here.    Our immediate customers are BP/CC, TPA and TRP and
thus the classification efforts should be focused on enabling their 
content structures.   Once we have that done we can go on fishing 
exercises in the area of 'show all trading partners who sell glass'.

As I stated in my separate email to you last night - I'm very happy to
continue my focus on the lower level aspects and let Farrukh do 
UML modelling.   We should be VERY cognisant however of the 
limitations of UML - and this is exposed by the other working
groups being unable to cleanly define XML interfaces - XMI is not
the answer here, and XMI was never intended to be used as such.

I'm glad we have got this all sorted out - time is of the essence and
we cannot allow bickering to interfer with the real technical work.

Also - there is a tremendous volume of information to assimulate
here - and so it does make sense to focus the teams.

I will re-focus my efforts into the interfacing area and working with
TRP on a common transport model between us.  That's clearly 
where my experience is better deployed.

Thanks, DW.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC