[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: TRP Work Plan - Version 17 Aug 00
CORBA? - of course !! David -----Original Message----- From: Henry Lowe [mailto:hlowe@omg.org] Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 1:15 PM To: David Burdett Cc: 'Christopher Ferris'; 'Jim Hughes'; ebxml transport Subject: RE: TRP Work Plan - Version 17 Aug 00 David, I'd suggest CORBA -- done by OMG. Of course, at this point, I can't promise anything as OMG does what the membership, or at least some subset of the membership, think is of value and provide the technical resources to do. Best regards, Henry -------------------------------------------------- At 12:49 PM 08/25/2000 -0700, David Burdett wrote: >We also need to do more than just RosettaNet. My initial candidate list (and >suggested responsibilities) would be: > >* AS1/AS2 - Dick Brooks? >* IOTP - David Burdett >* RosettaNet - Prasad Yendluri? >* MQ Series - John Ibbotson? > >Any more standards we should consider? > >David > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com] >Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 7:07 AM >To: David Burdett >Cc: 'Jim Hughes'; ebxml transport >Subject: Re: TRP Work Plan - Version 17 Aug 00 > > >I agree. We should see if we can't get the RNIF mapping >out of the POC team. Prasad and others basically performed >this function for purposes of the SJ demo. It would be >a useful, (non?-)normative appendix IMHO. > >Chris > >David Burdett wrote: >> >> Jim >> >> ... in an earlier email I suggested we added a comparison with existing >> protocols (RosettaNet, IOTP, AS1/AS2) ... as a separate work activity. I'm >> not sure we resolved this. I think we need to add it as a separate >activity >> since: >> 1. We need to do this work to meet our requirements >> 2. It is a significant piece of work, so I don't want us to forget it >> >> David >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jim Hughes [mailto:jfh@fs.fujitsu.com] >> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 10:11 AM >> To: ebxml transport >> 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 > >-- > _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Christopher Ferris - Enterprise Architect > _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ Phone: 781-442-3063 or x23063 > _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Email: chris.ferris@East.Sun.COM > _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ Sun Microsystems, Mailstop: UBUR03-313 >_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803-0903
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC