Subject: RE: revised requirements
Marty I've made some comments in the attached draft using revision marks. There is one general issue that I raise that I would like to repeat here ... <snip> Do we want to restrict the TP groups work to just business relationships. Electronic documents can be sent between two parties when there is no "business" relationship. Particularly, the functions in the ebXML Messaging Services spec, e.g. reliable messaging, equally apply to business and non-business situations. If we wish to restrict our usage to ONLY business relationships then using the term Trading Partner is fine. If we don't then we should replace the tern "Trading Partner" as used in Trading Partner Agreement and elseweher by something more neutral such as "Party" (see definitions below). We haven't properly discussed this as an issue but, IMO, we should. If we can't quickly come to a consensus, I think a vote is a good idea as then the issue will be resolved once and for all. </snip> David -----Original Message----- From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 2:58 PM To: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org Subject: revised requirements Here is the revised requirements document. It benefits from the few comments I have received plus other improvements. In the next day or so, we will be asked for our input to the ebXML requirements. It would be helpful if people could review the attached and provide comments very soon. Regards, Marty (See attached file: partner-requirements.doc) **************************************************************************** ********* Martin W. Sachs IBM T. J. Watson Research Center P. O. B. 704 Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com **************************************************************************** *********
partner-requirements David B.doc
Powered by
eList eXpress LLC