Re: UDDI, ebXML, and ecoFramework

[Mike Rawlins <rawlins@metronet.com>]

Rik,

Since only you and I seem to care much about this ;^), and we've both stated our
opinions, I don't see much to be gained by continuing this dialogue.   However,
I'm sure you'll agree with me that there's a big difference between the BP
metamodel using parts of the eCo framework, and ebXML adopting it wholesale with
all of its interfaces, schemas, and implementation details.   Those are beyond
the scope of the BP work.  They also don't fall within R&R, since R&R is only
working on means to host any generic artifact, and not working on the details of
the kinds of TP information needed for discovery.  The details of trading
partner discovery logically fall within the responsibility of the TP team, but
that team has not yet even reached a consensus that trading partner discovery is
within its scope.  In fact, the last time it was discussed the consensus was
that discovery was *not* within the team's scope.

So, there you have it.  You going to give me the last word???  Have a good
weekend.

Mike

rik drummond wrote:

> since it specified layer i would say it means uses..... best regards, rik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 12:07 PM
> To: ebxml-stc
> Subject: Re: UDDI, ebXML, and ecoFramework
>
> Thanks, Rik, but there are only two specific references to eCO in the BP
> metamodel document v2.
> They say:
>
> 126 -129
>
> 2. Markets and Parties
> This is the part of the model that allows organizations to register
> themselves relative to the markets they perform in and the types of services
> they offer. This aligns with the first four of the seven layers of the eCO
> framework.
>
> 679 - 680 "an eCO style self-registration on your own site might be
> workable'"
>
> I assume that the first reference is the most significant.  I'm not familiar
> enough with eCo or the BP work effort to know whether "aligns" means just
> "corresponds to" or "is based on".  In either case, I still think that
> making a generalization about planning to use eCo is still an overstatement.
>
> rik drummond wrote:
>
> > mike the references are in the bp documents.... and were there before we
> > read them at the tmwg meeting.... rik
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
> > Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 11:02 AM
> > To: ebxml-stc
> > Subject: re: UDDI, ebXML, and ecoFramework
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I appreciate Klaus' prompt action in addressing the issues UDDI raises
> > with his note yesterday.  However, I think that there's a
> > misrepresentation in that our plans for using the eCo Framework were
> > stated in a stronger fashion than they actually are.   To my knowledge,
> > no team has yet developed or approved at the team level even high level,
> > informal requirements for trading partner discovery, much less come out
> > with a firm position that we plan to use a specific approach such as
> > eCo.  It is certainly the opinion of several of us that ebXML will end
> > up specifying eCo, but giving the impression now that ebXML has already
> > made that decision is premature and inaccurate.  Such representations
> > can only have negative consequences, and I request that Klaus and the
> > rest of the Executive Committee be a little more careful in the future
> > with their statements about such technical matters.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
> > http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/
>
> --
> Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
> http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/

--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/