RE: Core Components

[mblantz@LTVSteel.com]

Who are we turning off?  Maybe Lisa or I could talk with them?

At AIAG last week we had a wide selection of business/technical folks, and they
seemed to understand what we were doing and why.

Of course, as an automotive industry representative, it's my 'job' to make sure
they
understand.  So I describe things in ways they find meaningful.

As for the Steering Committee, perhaps the 'business' perspective that I shared
with the automotive industry would make things clearer?   I'd be happy to run
through that when we all get to San Jose.

Until then, I will iterate what Mike said:  let's wait until we meet.

I have issues with several of the project teams, and I have questions about
their
documents.  In some cases I have received answers, and in other cases I have
waited for many weeks.   I would not post a message to the group about this
kind of thing, because it is far too easy read with a 'tone' that makes the
reader
defensive or angry,  when the writer may have been merely curious or honestly
just wanted to learn.






Rachel Foerster <rachelf@ix.netcom.com> on 07/27/2000 02:56:40 PM

Please respond to rachelf@ix.netcom.com

To:   ebXML-StC@lists.ebxml.org
cc:    (bcc: Mary K Blantz/CLGO/LTV)
Subject:  RE: Core Components



Mike, et al,

I understand your comments. However, I do believe that there are many
individuals who have tried to comprehend the CC and BP teams' direction and
documents without success. If individuals who are actively participanting in
ebXML can't get a clear understanding (this of course, even before one can
either agree or disagree with direction) then how on earth do we expect the
broader community to understand and support us? Apart from what appears to
me to be a small number of individuals who are actually actively
participating on these teams that seem to know what's being said in these
documents, others who have downloaded their documents and tried to
understand them have not been successful in that effort. This tells me we do
have some issues that we must address. We are starting to turn off too many
people.

Rachel

|-----Original Message-----
|From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
|Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 1:05 PM
|To: ebXML-StC@lists.ebxml.org
|Subject: Re: Core Components
|
|
|Rachel and all,
|
|My perspective is not just this message, which taken in a very
|limited context
|might be no more than a bit flippant ("I suppose this is old
|news...").     I
|also considered the broader context that includes a related
|recent message
|thread on "Different Perspectives", in which Scott talked
|about CBOs and CCs.
|I must confess to letting myself get a bit aggravated that
|folks are still
|rehashing issues that I thought we had resolved.
|
|Rachel, I think you misinterpret my intent in calling for this
|discussion to be
|moved off-line.  The topic may or may not be within the scope
|of the listserv,
|but that is not what I'm concerned about.  My concern is that
|I keep reading
|and hearing the same things over and over again, as if folks
|aren't really
|understanding or listening to what others are saying.   When listserv
|discussions get to that point, the only thing that happens is
|that the talkers
|usually get further polarized and more aggravated with each
|other, and everyone
|else stops reading the messages.  It is then much more
|productive to move the
|discussion to a face to face meeting or at least a conference call.
|
|I think we are past the point of productively discussing the
|issue of CC
|direction on this listserv.  Any of you who don't agree with
|me are perfectly
|free to continue the discussion, but I feel like giving it a
|rest.  However, I
|do request that we make this issue a top priority discussion
|topic for the StC
|meeting on Sunday in San Jose if there is anyone who *still*
|has problems with
|CC direction.  We need to come out of that meeting with StC
|having 100% support
|for the overall direction of *all* of the project teams.  If
|after that meeting
|we still have team leaders publicly questioning the direction
|of other teams or
|doing things like referring to CBOs instead of CCs, then we're
|going to have a
|very hard time achieving our goals.
|
|Mike
|
|Rachel Foerster wrote:
|
|> Mike,
|>
|> I don't share your perspective about Scott's message nor
|what you perceive
|> to be the tone of his message. Furthermore, I also don't agree that
|> discussion of this topic/issue is out of scope for this
|listserv. This IS
|> the ebXML Steering Committee listserv, is it not? I think
|that an airing of
|> perspectives, viewpoints, and/or concerns here is not only
|appropriate but
|> should be encouraged. This doesn't mean that I disagree that
|the discussion
|> should continue at the SJ StC meeting, but I think some good
|> pre-face-to-face information exchanges can and should take
|place in this
|> venue as well.
|>
|> Rachel
|>
|> |-----Original Message-----
|> |From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
|> |Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 10:41 AM
|> |To: Nieman, Scott
|> |Cc: 'mblantz@LTVSteel.com'; ebXML-StC@lists.ebxml.org
|> |Subject: Re: Core Components
|> |
|> |
|> |The turns this discussion has taken have only lead me to
|> |conclude that I was on
|> |target in suggesting that this discussion might be better
|> |pursued in a different
|> |forum.   I find the tone of Scott's response below to be
|inappropriate,
|> |counter-productive, and somewhat offensive, containing what I
|> |read as an implied
|> |assumption that the CC team doesn't know what it is doing and
|> |isn't listening to
|> |anyone.  I thought we cleared that up on Thursday at the
|> |Brussels meeting, but
|> |evidently not.   For Scott and others who apparently still
|> |have issue with CC
|> |direction, please talk less about what you think they ought to
|> |be doing and
|> |listen more to what they actually are doing.
|> |
|> |Again, if you want to pursue this further, I strongly suggest
|> |that we do it face
|> |to face at the Sunday afternoon meeting in San Jose, and not
|> |on this listserv.
|> |
|> |
|> |"Nieman, Scott" wrote:
|> |
|> |> Scott Hinkelman of IBM helped put together the CBO
|> |definition.  Also, the SF
|> |> project CBOs can be found and downloaded free from the web.
|> |I will try to
|> |> find the URL to that...if someone has it at the fingertips
|> |and can forward
|> |> it before I do, go for it.  Between the SF CBO, and their
|> |IAA patterns
|> |> (presented at X12), we have great references to look at.  I
|> |suppose this is
|> |> old news for CC since they were asked to look at these from
|> |day one at the
|> |> San Jose kickoff meeting.
|> |>
|> |> Scott
|> |>
|> |> -----Original Message-----
|> |> From: mblantz@LTVSteel.com [mailto:mblantz@LTVSteel.com]
|> |> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 4:23 PM
|> |> To: rachelf@ix.netcom.com
|> |> Cc: ebXML-StC@lists.ebxml.org
|> |> Subject: RE: Core Components
|> |>
|> |> Rachel, and all,
|> |>
|> |> We learned today on the BP/CC Alignment Team Conference Call
|> |that this
|> |> confusion goes both ways.
|> |>
|> |> Several of us have asked for the same precise definition
|of a Common
|> |> Business
|> |> Object, and haven't gotten what we think are clear answers.
|> |However, we
|> |> think
|> |> that we've been very clear about Smart Core Components!  I
|> |suspect that the
|> |> people who talk about CBOs think they've been clear.
|> |>
|> |> In any case, you'll be pleased to know that our alignment
|> |team has taken on
|> |> this
|> |> two-sided challenge and will have something for our review
|> |and edification
|> |> in
|> |> San Jose.
|> |>
|> |> I trust you are asking about this for your Project Team's
|> |activities, which
|> |> certainly
|> |> is important.  Since we on Core Components are doing some
|> |innovative and
|> |> exciting work, it will be great to see it get some press.
|> |>
|> |> Mary Kay
|> |>
|> |> Rachel Foerster <rachelf@ix.netcom.com> on 07/25/2000 03:17:37 PM
|> |>
|> |> Please respond to rachelf@ix.netcom.com
|> |>
|> |> To:   "'ebXML-StC'" <ebXML-StC@lists.ebxml.org>
|> |> cc:    (bcc: Mary K Blantz/CLGO/LTV)
|> |> Subject:  RE: oops - attachment
|> |>
|> |> Duane,
|> |>
|> |> A small grammatical correction: you use the contraction it's
|> |(which actually
|> |> = it is) when you should be using the possessive form if it
|> |(its) - see the
|> |> last slide.
|> |>
|> |> Also, is anyone else concerned about the lack of clarity for core
|> |> components. I think we must have a clear, concise,
|> |unambiguous definition of
|> |> an ebXML core component going in to the San Jose meeting and
|> |the ebXML Boot
|> |> Camp.
|> |>
|> |> Rachel
|> |>
|> |> |-----Original Message-----
|> |> |From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com]
|> |> |Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 12:44 PM
|> |> |To: ebXML-StC
|> |> |Subject: oops - attachment
|> |> |
|> |> |
|> |> |here it is for download
|> |> |
|> |> |http://www.sombrioracing.com/ebxml/
|> |> |
|> |> |D-
|> |>
|> |>
|> |---------------------------------------------------------------
|> |---------
|> |>
|> |> Subject: IBM SF Info
|> |> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:27:53 -0500
|> |> From: srh@us.ibm.com
|> |> To: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org, ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
|> |>
|> |> On today's BP call, there was discussion on CBOs and CCs,
|along with
|> |> discusion
|> |> about CBOs in IBM's SanFrancisco. Here is an overview of SF
|> |that should
|> |> help.
|> |> SF has core roots in OMG standards, and has been recognized as the
|> |> first project to extend Java content upward toward business
|> |solutions.
|> |> I can share more if needed, and discuss further in SJ.
|> |>
|> |> (See attached file: SFInfo.zip)
|> |> Thanks,
|> |> Scott Hinkelman
|> |> Senior Software Engineer, SWG IBM Austin
|> |> 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
|> |> srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
|> |>
|> |>
|> |---------------------------------------------------------------
|> |---------
|> |>                     Name: SFInfo.zip
|> |>    SFInfo.zip       Type: Zip Compressed Data
|> |(application/x-zip-compressed)
|> |>                 Encoding: base64
|> |>              Description: .ZIP File
|> |
|> |--
|> |Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EDI Consulting
|> |http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/
|> |
|> |
|
|--
|Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EDI Consulting
|http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/
|
|