RE: Resubmission of Distributed Registry Approaches.ppt

[David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by "Welsh, David"
>Anyway to be clear for the record, the CPP I'm talking about is a
Collaboration-Protocol Profile and I'm looking at what is defined in the TP
team's work today (hey, the document title is a dead giveaway !!!) :
Collaboration-Protocol Profile and Agreement Specification (Version 0.93),
ebXML Trading-Partners Team, 03/19/01 5:38 PM.

I think we've probably beaten this up enough, and I propose we just stick
to
what / how ebXML is formally defining in it's soon to be public
documentation as the CPP; so we're helping ensure later compatability as
people not here start building their CPP's and registries. 
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

David,

The lack of specificity at the XML level is a major problem for ebXML.

Once we have that - we will be in good shape.   I've only been preaching
this for the past six months and more.  The last time I checked sending
people UML diagrams as a means of business interchange was not
being widely supported ; ->

Anyway - all carping apart - alot of this will only get resolved at the
right level once implementors are cutting code against the spec's
and deciding how to work with participants in gaining interoperability
thru usage that is supported by the spec's AND can actually be 
understood and used by real business users.

Nothing new here.  It took EDI 10 years to figure this particular lesson
out;
hopefully Internet time will get us there within one year instead.

DW.