W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2003

RE: [Fwd: UN/CEFACT TMG Releases e-Business Architecture Technical Specification for Public Review]

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 11:23:11 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01817CE1@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Duane Nickull" <duane@xmlglobal.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

I can hardly claim to have reviewed this rather dense document in
anything other than the most cursory manner, but nonetheless I'd like to
point out the statement on page 52 that the "messaging service layer
SHALL enforce the 'rules of engagement' as defined by two Trading
Partners in a a Trading Partner Agreement (including, but not limited to
security and Business Process functions related to Message delivery)".
[Lordy, I HATE PDF files that won't allow you to cut and paste, so you
have to retype all that stuff, probably making errors.  Basically, I
just hate PDF files.  Sorry, Adobe folk].

This statement seems to me to highlight what seems to me to be a fairly
significant difference between the way an organization like ebXML or
UN/CEFACT views messaging layers and the way the W3C is likely to.  I
think (but would be glad to be corrected if I am wrong), that the
business specs view some functions as being part of the messaging layer
that the W3C folk would probably think of as being in an application
layer, but that there are other functions that the two groups would
agree are in the messaging layer.  Specifically, I think both groups
would put security functions in the messaging layer but disagree about
business agreements involving delivery.  [I'd be glad to be wrong here
...].  

I'm very unclear on the ramifications of this, but it seems to me that
the situation carries with it a potential for discussions between people
in these organizations to be apples and oranges kind of affairs.  That
is, terms like "messaging service layer" may have rather different
meanings in the two organizations.  IMO there's absolutely nothing wrong
with that, but I think it might make us a little cautious in expecting
to develop shared views of things.

-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 10:57 AM
To: 'w3c-ws-arch@w3.org'
Subject: [Fwd: UN/CEFACT TMG Releases e-Business Architecture Technical
Specification for Public Review]



FYI - This will probably be of interest to this group....

No rush - this is a three month review cycle.  Please note where to send

in comments, should you feel inclined.

Duane

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: UN/CEFACT TMG Releases e-Business Architecture Technical 
Specification for Public Review
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 17:03:26 -0800
From: Klaus-Dieter Naujok <knaujok@attglobal.net>
Reply-To: "UN/CEFACT TMG General Discussion List" 
<uncefact-tmg-general@listman.disa.org>
To: "UN/CEFACT TMG General Discussion List" 
<uncefact-tmg-general@listman.disa.org>
CC: UN/CEFACT CSG List <unece-cefact-csg@list.unicc.org>,
UN/CEFACT FCT 
List <uncefact-fct@listman.disa.org>,	CEFACT-HOD@xmlglobal.com, List 
<cefact-hod@list.unicc.org

Geneva, Switzerland, 10 February 2003 - UN/CEFACT's Techniques and
Methodologies Group (TMG) is announcing the release of its 'UN/CEFACT -
e-Business Architecture Technical Specification, Version 0.83' for
Public Review under its Open Development Process. The Technical
Specification is available via the TMG Web Site
(http://webster.disa.org/cefact-groups/tmg). Under the
"Downloads->General TMG-> Documents For Review" Section.

Under this process all interested parties have the opportunity to
review, comment on, and contribute to Technical Specifications. This
step is a critical part of the UN/CEFACT Open Development Process.
Comments from the public frequently raise fundamental process and
technical issues - missed by the expert project team member - therefore
considerably improved the specifications. This public review period ends
2 May 2003. Please submit your comments to Hans Armfelt Hansell
<hans.hansell@unece.org> (Deputy Director - Trade Development and Timber
Division).

In order to assist in the review and commenting, the Technical
Specification has each line start with a unique line number to allow
placements of comments against them. For each comment, reviewers shall
provide the specification's line number range, the comment itself, the
rational for the comment, and suggestion for change.

After the end of the review period the project team will review all the
comments, criticisms, and suggestions from the public, and further
refine and improve the specification. As changes are made, the updated
document and disposition log will be republished at the web site. This
will allow everyone to not only see the changes, but also the rational
behind them and reasons for suggestions that were not accepted.
Experience has shown that 2or 3 iterations are enough to address the
public comments and to build consensus for the final version of the
specification.

Klaus-Dieter Naujok, TMG Chair

--
Klaus-Dieter Naujok                         UN/CEFACT/TMG Chair
Global e-Business Advisory Council            Principal Advisor
+1.925.706.2954                           http://www.ge-bac.com


---
You are currently subscribed to the uncefact-tmg-general listserve. To
unsubscribe send an email to lyris@listman.disa.org with the following
subject: Unsubscribe uncefact-tmg-general If you do not receive
confirmation of your unsubscribe request please notify
postmaster@disa.org to report the problem.

.


-- 
VP Strategic Relations,
Technologies Evangelist
XML Global Technologies
****************************
ebXML software downloads - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 12:50:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:14 GMT