[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Interface Primitives Draft V021.
There are certainly a number of sensitivities here, so I hope this note will put them to rest. Here are some guidelines: Only official ebXML project team documents should be labelled in any way as ebXML documents. If you want to say that a document has been submitted to ebXML, that is fine, but label it that way. Like "W3C Notes", people involved with ebXML will understand the difference. If any of your inputs are part of an official ebXML specification, then you can talk about that work having been accepted in the draft. Otherwise, it is just being considered "along with many other things." We prefer that people just talk about participating in ebXML and contributing to the work than their making statements about ebXML following any company's strategy or technology. Keep the marketing and the standards creation process separate. Everyone is welcome to contribute documents for consideration by the project teams. I hope you can now get back to the technical discussion at hand. Bob .......................................................... Bob Sutor IBM Program Director, e-business Standards Strategy ebXML Vice-Chair Yutaka Yoshida <Yutaka.Yoshida@eng.sun.com> on 09/20/2000 01:19:32 PM Please respond to Yutaka Yoshida <Yutaka.Yoshida@eng.sun.com> To: Gnosis_@compuserve.com cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Re: Interface Primitives Draft V021. David, I must admit it's pretty embarrassing that you stated "only Sun and IBM are allowed to provide the input". That is totally a misunderstanding. As far as I know, the only document we can review is Farrukh's one, so we are reviewing it right now - that's it. Since I am assigned to cater the interface, I just welcomed the actual specification we have on the table as a basis and I believe that all participants recognize what we are doing in that way. You seemed to mention that you provided the document, but I have never seen that in the regrep mailing list. Actually, I don't quite understand what your frustration is. Because you can certainly input your comments and discuss your idea in the conference call. Also, I strongly suggest that you be raising this kind of issue within the regrep group first instead of jumping to the SC. regards, yutaka yoshida > Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 03:01:13 -0400 > From: David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com> > Subject: Re: Interface Primitives Draft V021. > > Klaus, > > Can I please have an official clarification from the Steering Committee on > this. > > As you can see from my original posting - I was indeed clearly stating that > > my work is in alignment with and complimentary to the work being done > by Farrukh, and offered 5 numbered items to this effect. > > The clarification I am formally seeking is I want it made clear > if in fact only employees of Sun Microsystems and IBM > (International Business Machines) Corp. are allowed to provide input to > the Registry/Repository group as formal documents - or if other members > are, from time to time, are allowed to submit <draft> documents detailing > ideas > and concepts that they feel should be considered in the context of the > work Sun and IBM are doing? > > Also - is it acceptable for people who do not wish to use UML modelling > tools > to illustrate design concepts with alternate comparable methodologies? > > Once we have this clarification, then I feel I can better understand how > one > can interact within the Registry / Repository working group. > > Respectfully, DW. > =================================================================== > Message text written by Farrukh Najmi > > > David, > > I don't know what this document is and how it relates to RegRep. We do not > want to > create parallel universes in regrep. AFAIK I was assigned the task of > defining the RR > info model and registry services spec by Scott as an outcome of our last > meeting. I > am working very hard to do this. This sort of unsolicited activity creates > FUD (Fear, > Uncertainty and Doubt) that is highly undesirable for us to make foreword > progress. > Please cease and desist. Scott, please weigh in as the team lead. I am very > frustrated by this sort of out of band activity. This needs to stop. I will > not have > it any more. > > Look David. I thought we had a private conversation that we will work > together and > make this RR stuff work. What we need is to review the work that is already > on the > table. We do not need parallel documents that JUST CREATE FUD. I am so > frustrated > that I cannot even say a nice word about the hard work you have put into > whatever the > heck this document is. > > -- > > Regards, > Farrukh > > David RR Webber wrote: > > > Attached PDF of V 0.21 > > > > Some issues and next steps. > > > > 1) Figure out alignment with Farrukh's classification doc - > > this does not look too tough - both are in alignment is my > > assessment - and as Scott noted previously the section > > 2.3 to 2.5 fit. > > > > 2) More tough - design of classification structure samples - > > this is an amalgumation of ebXML BP, ebXML CC and > > GUIDE and OASIS/ISO11179 classifications. > > > > I'm basically seeing this will take us a month of hard work > > to do - we can't rush this. > > > > 3) I've made a good start on the interface Query/Response. > > We can use <extensions> to place SQL as triggers so > > that we can meet Farrukhs requirement for SUM, COUNT > > et al for SQL based Repository sources by simply putting > > this code inline as labelled SQL - this is a nice > > compromise between XML and SQL sources. > > > > 4) Change Request is significantly harder. So far I've made a > > first cut on this. I think we can get much closer with another > > weeks work on this. Michael Kass and Len Gallagher at > > NIST can really help on this too. There is a lot of supplemental > > detail that needs to be resolved. > > > > 5) I've asked the TRP group to comment on DASL and TRP > > transport to see what is the best approach here. I've at > > least identified the functional needs here - and we can > > get the guru's in TRP to apply brainpower to the > > challenges. My personal thought on this is that we > > need two mechanisms - but ones that are very similar > > and related - use http, MIME, same tag names, so it > > is easy for developers to co-exist both mechanisms > > based on business functional implementation requirements. > > > > Last thought is I'm seeing that the pieces fit together thus: > > > > 1) Scotts Part 1 Spec > > 2) Scotts Part 2 Spec > > 2a) Farrukhs classification document > > 2b) My interfacing document > > 2c) TRP transport usage document > > > > I think we should review Farrukhs document on the conference > > call - and then tackle the interfacing document with a > > followon call. > > > > Thanks, DW. > >< >
Powered by eList eXpress LLC