Re: UDDI, ebXML, and ecoFramework

[Mike Rawlins <rawlins@metronet.com>]

Sorry MK, but I don't know any more than you do.  I based my R&R comment on my
review of the one document that R&R submitted, and Scott's many comments that all
that R&R was building was a facility to register and store any kind of artifact, and
that they were not dealing with the details of the artifacts.

Now, Nick K has stated that R&R has a document "tabled" that deals with trading
partner discovery.  This is news to me, and is a departure from Scott's previous
comments.  Scott, what's the story on this?

Mike

mblantz@LTVSteel.com wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Much as I would like you to have the last word, I must ask a question.
>
> You indicated a knowledge of the R&R that is more than I know.  I trust you
> have found the documentation somewhere.
>
> Please share.
>
> Mary Kay
>
> Mike Rawlins <rawlins@metronet.com> on 09/08/2000 01:37:39 PM
>
> Please respond to rawlins@metronet.com
>
> To:   ebxml-stc <ebxml-stc@lists.ebxml.org>
> cc:    (bcc: Mary K Blantz/CLGO/LTV)
> Subject:  Re: UDDI, ebXML, and ecoFramework
>
> 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/

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