RE: updated requirements document

["Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>]

Dale it has always been my idea that we should leverage the ideas inside
tpaML.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Moberg, Dale [mailto:Dale_Moberg@stercomm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 6:26 AM
To: Burdett, David; Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: updated requirements document


Marty and David,

I think the current requirements document is
reasonable and has adequate initial 
precision. As far as I understand
the distinction between "party"
and "partner", I think the use
of "party" would be ok and not
expand the scope unacceptably.

I hope, however, that we
agree to treat this document as amendable,
because many other issues of scope still need to
be considered as well as many areas of interaction
with other working groups. I think
dedicated face to face efforts will
help sort out areas of focus and interest.

I sometimes think that these
requirements document get used
for "engineering agendas." 
I hope we can remain a little flexible while
participants synch up and reach a working
consensus on what seems worthwhile-- 
immediately and longer term-- while
leveraging the powerful initial
specifications (tpaML) we have available
at the outset.

Dale Moberg


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 8:31 AM
> To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM; ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: RE: updated requirements document
> 
> 
> Marty
> 
> Apart from my earlier comments about using Party rather than Trading
> Partner, more detailed comments are in the attached.
> 
> I can't make the call tomorrow as I'm on a flight, but I 
> strongly suggest
> that we decide whether to use Party or Trading Partner in the 
> requirements
> before we release the document. 
> 
> Since other groups (i.e. CC and TRP) are using Party rather 
> than Trading
> Partner, my vote would be to use Party for consistency with 
> prior work.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 1:51 PM
> To: ebxml-tp@lists.ebxml.org
> Subject: updated requirements document
> 
> 
> I have updated the Requirements document based on the recent 
> responses to
> the previous version.  I especially want to thank David 
> Burdett for changes
> and additions which considerably improve the document.
> 
> Please review and comment at your earliest convenience.  I 
> plan to ask the
> attendees at tomorrow's conference call to decide if we can 
> consider that
> we have completed work on the requirements so that we can 
> move on to the
> next stage.
> 
> If there are any ebXML formalities that must be observed for the
> requirements document, someone please enlighten me.
> 
> 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
> **************************************************************
> **************
> *********
> 
>