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 show the overall functionality of the ebXML architecture). David Webber felt it implied asynchronous communication and Farrukh explained that TRP also provides synchronous communication.< >>>>>>>>>>> Scott, 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 the 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.
eList eXpress LLC