Comments on the Straw Poll

[Dave Hollander <dmh@commerce.net>]

I am sorry that conflicts have prevented my from attending
the meetings. I have been following the email with great
interest.

Comments on the consensus statements.

1) I agree strongly that the focus should be forward looking
to maximize ebXML interoperability. I hope that can be achieved
without having to use a single set of elements but rather can
use architectures (schema prototype elements, namespaces or
architectural forms) to allow ebXML semantics to coexist in
documents that cover non-ebXML information.

The architecture would need to identify specific semantics
describe those semantics. Furthermore, complex structures such 
as price or address blocks that can be adopted in-total should
be defined.

2) I feel a little bit like attacking motherhood and apple pie
here, but feel that we must be successful in application 
development before multi-lingual support can be important.
I am only willing to do this because I assume that actual
element names will be assigned outside of the ebXML activity
using the architecture as described in (1).

3) B2B is large enough of a project with sufficient return.
B2C is interesting, but...

I am little confused by the comment on displays. Does this 
imply that there will be a preferred display as part of the spec?
If so, I hope it is considered in terms of default/preferred
display specifications via style sheet and not mandatory.

4) If specific cross industry documents are identified then
they could be included, preferably as examples of how to apply
the architecture. Perhaps a second round effort could address
more of these types of documents.


Last Updated 1/13/2000

>1.  Conflict - Maximize interoperability with existing EDI implementations, or maximize
>interoperability between ebXML applications.  
>
>Proposed Consensus:  We should work primarily toward maximum interoperability between ebXML applications,
>i.e., a single standard.   We must provide a mechanism and migration path for accomodating legacy EDI and other
>XML efforts.
>
>2.  Conflict - Maximize interoperability between ebXML applications, or maximize internationalization
>by supporting multi-lingual ebXML components?  If the latter, which languages?
>
>Consensus - Multi-lingual support has higher priority.
>
>3.  Scope - Should the ebXML guidelines apply to business to consumer, or only business to business?
>
>Consensus - B2B should be the primary focus and B2C secondary.  Any requirements specific to B2C are beyond our
>scope.  Autmomated B2C may be within our scope, but presentation (in the sense of display to an end user) is not.
>
>4.  Scope - Should the ebXML guidelines provide universally applicable cross industry document
>definitions?
>
>Consensus:  The guidelines should not provide these cross industry document definitions.
>
>
>

__________________________________________________________
Dave Hollander
Director eCommerce Knowledge Management and Interoperability
CommerceNet
Co-chair W3C XML Schema Working Group
dmh@commerce.net 
970-613-0605
__________________________________________________________