OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-requirements message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re[2]:Conference Call Correction

Hello all, 

Unluckily, I won't be bale to attend the conference call but below are some
comments trigerred by the issues. Jean

____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject:    Re:Conference Call Correction 
Author: "Mark CRAWFORD"<mcrawfor@lmi.org>
Date:       3/30/00 7:07 AM


    Unfortunately, I am with a client at a DoD EMall meeting all day Friday.  I
may be able to join the conference call for a short time depending on when we
have lunch.

    I think there are four issues that need addressed -

    1) XML in ebXML.  I challenge anyone to find where we are using XML in what
is being developed by the project teams. Not only in the TRP effort, but those
of core components, business process, and registry and repository as well. In my
opinion they are off developing (reinventing) OO/Open EDI under the guise of
XML.  Sorry folks - it won't sell.

unfortunatley I tend to share this idea and that is the 'feeling' I have when I
heard Klaus explaining in Paris the repository. I tried to promote the idea that
the initaitive should ALSO, I stress also, use the work done on paper documents,
combined with the work done in the UK on simpl eb using XML and that this work
could be pushed very rapidly if there is a will. I haven't seen that will
expressed except by some individulas. There is the risk that the initiative is
seen, as somebody mentioned to me in an e-mail, as 'the grand unified theory'. 

    2) Organizational submissions.  Klaus has made it very clear that we are
individuals participating in ebXML.  My guess is no organization has "formally"
reviewed our requirements document and "voted" on an organizational submission. 
Unless specifically directed to by Klaus, I don't believe any "organizational"
submission should be treated as anything other than a submission by the
individual making it.

The issue arises when you move away from consensus to voting. Voting is very
sensitive as it freezes situations and camps and it should be avoided. But if it
comes to it, then you face the issue of having to identify how to cut the
initiative into clusters and each cluster has one vote. Defining the 'clusters'
is the hard think individulas only or ? the countries were built on war many
times so we better make it clear to the public before a vote is done. 

    3) Accomodating comments.  WE are the ebXML requirements team.  We are the
ones who should determine what the contents of our document are as it moves
forward.  Certainly we listen to the technical expertise from the various
project teams, and incorporate to the extent we don't disagree with them. 
However, in my opinion, the final decision on what is included in the
requirements document coming out of our team is ours.  The full plenary can
certainly vote to reject the document, as can the steering and executive


    4) Process.  My sense is you all should review the various submissions and
identify as a group any you feel strongly about - one way or the other.  I will
then take that guidance in incorporating comments for the next draft.

 By the way, will you take the contributions I sent just before you issued the
requiremnet document for review?

Thanks and looking forward to the result.

Jean Kubler

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC