Minutes of 1-20-00 Teleconference

["Warner, Thomas" <Thomas.Warner@MW.Boeing.com>]

Teammates, 

Sorry, I do not have time to clean up the Text version of the minutes. 
The text spacing of columns needs fixing.
Mike R and I will be "out of pocket" most of this week. 

   <<ebxml-ReqGrp-Telcon-012000.doc>>      
<<ebxml-ReqGrp-Telcon-012000.txt>> 
Tom Warner
Manager, Electronic Commerce Initiatives
Integrated Digital Environment Program
Aircraft and Missiles Systems
The Boeing Company
(T) 314-232-0615
(F) 314-777-1704
e-mail: thomas.warner@boeing.com

ebxml-ReqGrp-Telcon-012000.doc

01/21/00
UN/CEFACT - OASIS ebXML
ebXML Requirements Group
Teleconference 01-20-00
Summary Report 

Chair:    Mike Rawlins (972) 783-9573
Secty:   Tom Warner  (314) 232-0615
Editor :  Mark Crawford (703) 917-7177

Attendees / Members:                               e-mail                                              Attended 1/13/00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Rawlins,   Team Leader                  rawlins@metronet.com                            Y                 
Tom Warner,    Secretary                        	thomas.warner@boeing.com                  Y
Mark Crawford, Editor       		mcrawford@lmi.org                                 Y
Jon Bosak                                             	bosak@eng.sun.com                                
Tim Cochran                                          	tcochran@disa.org 
Turochas Fuad                                         turochas.fuad@sun.com                         Y
Kenji Itoh                                                	kenji41@attglobal.net                                
Scott Hinkelman                                       srh@us.ibm.com                                     
Doug Hopeman                                   	hopeman@xmls.com 
Ravi Kacker				rkacker@kraft.com                                  
Jean Kubler                                           	jean.kubler@unece.org                            Y
Kim Lambert                                          	klambert@air-transport.org                      
Kit Lueder                                                kit@mitre.org                                      	Y      
Murray Maloney				Murray@muzmo.com			Y
Marcia McLure				marcia.mclure@mmiec.com                    Y
Norbert Mikula				norbert@datachannel.com                      
Garret Minakawa                          	gminakaw@us.oracle.com 
Dwayne Nickull 				?
Kathleen Tyson-Quah                            	jtq@granularity.co.uk                               
Don Rudie                                              	rudied@dnb.com                                     Y
David Webber                                          drrwebber@acm.org                                
Erik J. Leckner                                         eleckner@seagate.com		             
Dave Hollander				dmh@commerce.net			Y

Agenda :
? Agenda Additions
? Roll Call
? Minutes of 1/13/00 Teleconference:   Changes / Additions / Acceptance 
? "Housekeeping Items":
? Review Issues Straw Poll 
? Issues Discussion
* Schedule next call (Sun to sponsor again)

Agenda addition:  Mike R. Added  BOV / FSV diagram to the Issue #1 straw poll discussion_
Minutes Correction: 
? Jean Kubler changed the Title of Ray Walker in the 1/13/00 minutes to 'Chair, UN/CEFACT Steering 
Group".  
? Mark Crawfors asked that his title be corrected to "EDITOR"
 Housekeeping Items:  
? Mike R. noted that  members need to call the main Hilton Reservation number during normal daytime 
business hours in order to get someone who can give the OASIS rates. 
? Mike R. noted also that there is still no word on the Project Team level web pages.  Mike R. will set up 
one next week if OASIS does not create on by then.  It will eventually be off of the main ebXML web site. 

Reveiw Issues Straw Poll:  Mike R
? Clarification:  We were to have been voting on the Consensus part of the Issue and not just agreeing 
that the item was an issue.  (Marcia M.  may have voted for the issue and not the consensus)
? Total of 16 people voted - 13 were regular group members  - 3 were non members - Vote will be 
broken out accordingly. 
? Mike R. -  Will send out another copy of the Issues / consensus list to the ListServe.  
? 
? Issue #1 -  Result = " Close to consensus" 
? 81% total voters agreed with the posted consensus - 85% of regular's agreed  
? Regulars = 11 agree and 2 disagree
? Non Members = 2 agree and 1 disagree
? Issue #2 - Result  = "No consensus"
? 69% total voters Agree
? 77% Regulars Agree
? 33% Non members agree
? Issue #3 - Result  = "Close to consensus" 
? 81% total voters Agree
? 77% Regulars Agree
? 100% Non members agree
? Issue #4 - Result  = "No consensus" 
? 50% total voters Agree
? 38% Regulars Agree
? 100% Non members agree

Issues General Discussion:
? Dave H. - Issue 4 - Agrees that this is "boiling the Ocean"
? Murray M. - Issue 4 - this is not a consensus
? Don R. - General - recapped view that consensus is for a single standard that is multi-lingual and cross 
industry .
? Marcia -M. Need agreement as to what the consensus weighting is...need it clearly understood.
? Tom W. - the "cross industry" piece of the issue is 2 issues.  "Usability across industries" is more 
agreeable and easier to do than combined, multi-industry development of "common cross industry 
standards". 
 
 BOV vs FSV Diagram 
? Mike R. - Explained that this conceptual picture is used by X12 and TMWG as a "Framework" for 
differentiating The Business Operational View (BOV) of OO-edi from the Functional Service View (FSV) 
of OO-edi.  It is being introduced here as an example of how we might delineate the Business 
(semantics) Requirements from the Technical Layer Requirements.  Use of a diagram (not necessarily 
this one) could be useful for clarification of components of an ebXML Standards 
? The BOV section covers the business standards pieces.
? The TMWG has proposed that UML Modeling be used for this standards effort.
? For ebXML we see the business analysis standards requirements being  independent of the 
technical implementations.
? The BOV may also define the services needed from the functional services layers
? The FSV section covers the functional service of the technical layers that support the business 
analysis layers above it.  The FSV would contain a stack of core standards (core components).
? Don R. - Where are the business semantics defined?
? Mike R. - Mostly in the BOV but there are core component pieces that need to be defined in the FSV so 
there is a cross over for semantics support.
? Jean K. - Need to add data models to the BOV (it is not just process models). That is where the data 
semantics come from.   Suggest that the group look at the UN/CEFACT MOU for the Matrix Roadmap.
? (www.uncefact.org  - Documents - MOU -  MG/98N000651) 
? Murray M.  - confused as to why we are discussing BOV
? Marcia M - agreed
? Mark C - thinks that the FSV is just EDI oriented (technical pieces)
? Mike R. - The reason for the diagram is that everyone agrees that something needs to be done about the 
semantic requirements modeling (UML?) piece of the requirements.  We have been disagreeing where 
the appropriate place is to do that work.  By breaking the requirements picture into something like a BOV 
and FSV we might better identify our scope for these requirements categories.
? Murray M. - Objected to having this discussion.  Its not in this project groups charter.
? Marcia M. and Jean K - - Disagree
? Mike R. - Disagree - It is important that we determine our scope.  That does include covering the 
requirements of the other project groups (at a high level)
? Mike R. - Back to the Diagram - (possible picture) - On the top of the "Stack" we would see the DTDs 
and Schemas representing the business models.  These would be built upon "core elements" and 
'attributes", etc.. Below this would be the communications and security pieces.  And all of this would run 
on the XML standards that are to be identified.  Does this picture help?
? Jean K - Thinks this is the right approach - We need a matrix like picture - See above recommended 
UNCEFACT matrix example.  Suggest proposing a matrix to the steering committee.
? Group discussion - whether a matrix is helpful or not.  Whether modeling should be mentioned in the 
scope of the general requirements.  The Business Process Team will be doing the modeling 
requirements.
? Don R.  - (reality check) - Our team needs to determine / record the scope of the business view that 
ebXML is going to cover. .
? Mike R. - clarified our team charter -  1)  We are to collect and consolidate the requirements of all the 
other project teams.  2.)  We are to establish the high level overarching ebXML requirements.  
? Murray  M.- summarized - We should capture the work requirements of the individual project groups and 
not do their work for them.  Separately, we should define the overall requirements for ebXML.
? Don R. - the core components group should do their work based on our (general) requirements, 
otherwise no one sets their scope.
? Marcia M. Agree with last 2 speakers - We need to consolidate / define from the BOV down to the 
transport layer.  If we find any missing pieces from the other project groups we will add them.  (We will 
do the requirements coordinating across groups.)  

Clarified Work Plan  - Mike R -
? In Orlando part of the plan is for joint sessions with all of the other project teams to "capture / coordinate 
their requirements. 
? But 1st the Requirements Project Team will meet alone to come to a consensus on the issues and our 
scope of work before going "one on one" with each project.group.
? We will provide ongoing input status  of our work to the steering committee.
? Tom W. - agreed - We need to a level set, in Orlando, with our own team with the other project teams 
and with the steering committee.  Remember that we have all gone off on our own (each team) with 
minimal amount of direction / agreements in San Jose.  This has to be an iterative process to correct 
course.
? Mike R.  - Senses that team sees some value in a "matrix".  Will take this to the Steering committee for 
discussion and a ruling.  Will bring the results back to the team.
? Group  - Agreed that some kind of matrix shows potential value. 
? Mark C - It needs to show from the BOV to the Transport layer and needs to include EDI and XML in the 
FSV.

Requirements Documentation:
? Marcia M.  - thought that we'd have a draft by now of the requirements document for Orlando
? Mike R. - Sorry  , we did go past our dead line.  Mark and Mike still plan to synthesize the team 
requirements and produce the draft of all the sections of the requirement document in time for Orlando.  
Will try to get ASAP but it may not be until we are on our way to Orlando.  The draft document will be 
based on the " consensus view" (however slim) and will include the commentary we have captured from 
both sides of the issues.
? Mark C. - We will add up all the base line requirements of the team members.  Any disagreements will 
be highlighted.  If you have any additional requirements contributions please send them to Mark ASAP. 
? Mike R. - We will build and post the draft document ASAP

Next Meetings:
? 1/28/00 - 1130-1300 CST - Req's Teleconference - Host: T. to post info 
? 1/31-2/4/00 - Orlando  - Full ebXML Meeting 
? 5/8-12/00 - Brussels - Full ebXML Meeting 
* 08/07- 11/ 00    -   USA ( TBD)
* 11/06-10/ 00     -   Japan - Tokyo
?