[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: TRP Work Plan - Version 17 Aug 00
My reasons for adding it to the Work Plan as I did was: - simplicity - there may be vendors which will create Messaging Services, and these Services need to be interoperable with respect to higher layer business processes But I don't care about the packaging decision, as long as someone gets going on getting this interface decided for the POC and we look towards a final solution. Rik/Chris, how do you want to lead this resolution? Jim At 12:58 PM 8/18/00 -0700, David Burdett wrote: >Jim > >I firmly beleive we *don't* put the Service API spec into the messaging spec >but should instead keep it as a separate document. The reasons are: >1. The API's you use to interface with the ebXML Messaging Service is purely >an implementation decision. If, for example you wanted to put the service on >a PDA then compliance with the Service Interface could be too burdensome >2. More importantly conformance to the API is not required for >interoperability between trading partners. All that is needed is compliance >with the wire protocol >3. It will make it harder to maintain and revise the document as the editor >role will become a bottleneck >4. There is a requirement in the Overview & Requirements document that says >... > > "1) Servers/systems that support the exchange of documents shall be >treated as "black boxes" " > >We definitely do need the spec as it will make it easier for business >process (i.e. application) implementers to do plug-and-play with ebXML >services from different vendors. > >David > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jim Hughes [mailto:jfh@fs.fujitsu.com] >Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 2:27 PM >To: ebxml transport >Subject: TRP Work Plan - Version 17 Aug 00 > > >Based on comments from the TRP meeting this morning and several email >messages, here is a new cut of the plan. > >Significant changes: > >- added Service API to the plan. I believe the first version must be folded >into the overall Messaging Services Spec within the month, and some amount >of the Service API should be approved in Tokyo. > >- I have indicated where we should release the Messaging Spec, the Service >API drafts and the Messaging Spec to the POC. > >Other notes: > >- as before, I've made some assumptions about the Security work, so I need >confirmation of these dates... > >- I arbitrarily assigned major version numbers to the Messaging Services >Spec (based on approval at plenary meetings) and showed how the subordinate >specs are being folded into it. > >- I reduced the chart scope to just the Vancouver meeting so it prints >better. We don't know what we're doing between Vancouver and Vienna just >yet...! > >- 5 days is shown for Quality Team review, with two-week Member reviews >immediately following. We may need some time inserted to react to Quality >Team comments... > >And apologies to Rik/Chris, as they haven't yet approved/commented on the >work plan. I trust they will concur in our planning work during their >absence! > >Jim
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC