[ebxml-iic] 6/18/2002: impl guidelines,on the "technical" and"depl oyment" sides

[Monica Martin <mmartin@certivo.net>]

Pete,
Comments are in line with ebXML IIC discussion yesterday.  Artifacts
should be clearly delineated.
 
Agreed.
Monica

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Pete Wenzel 
	Sent: Tue 6/18/2002 11:45 AM 
	To: Jacques Durand 
	Cc: 'Eric VanLydegraf'; ebxml-iic@lists.oasis-open.org;
'pereira@ean-int.org'; Federico Franciosi; Thomas Bikeev 
	Subject: Re: [ebxml-iic] RE: impl guidelines,on the "technical"
and "depl oyment" sides
	
	

	Thus spoke Jacques Durand (JDurand@fsw.fujitsu.com) on Mon, Jun
17, 2002 at 07:12:34PM -0700:
	> OK, Eric you are on the team for the "deployment template"
design,
	> with Monica & Pete... (and Michael Wang of course as editor,
in so far
	> as the outcome is still assumed to be a merged document.)
	
	In my mind, these were actually separate documents, because the
	targets and content are quite different:
	
	The Implementation Guide is aimed at software developers, to
identify
	and advise on various problem areas that may be encountered
during
	design and development of a product.  It answers questions like
"What
	actions must an MSH take if a Business Process specifies
	isNonRepudiationRequired?" or "What is the procedure for
verification
	of a Signature element?"
	
	On the other hand, the Deployment Guide Template I propose is to
aid
	consortia in specifying the items that need to be customized for
their
	particular user community; in most cases, these are software
	configuration issues.  Examples:  "What digital signature
algorithms
	are allowed?", "What are the names of the Action elements, and
how do
	they correspond to this organization's business process
definitions?"
	
	Both serve to enhance interoperability, but at different levels.
	
	--Pete
	
	> So I assume the subteam for now is:
	>  (make sure to CC each other in this group, on this topic,
	> unless you send to ebxml-iic + EAN folks, which is perfectly
OK):
	>
	> pereira@ean-int.org
	> franciosi@ean-int.org
	> Bikeev@ean-int.org
	> ericv@kinzan.com
	> pete@seebeyond.com
	> mmartin@certivo.net
	> mwang@tibco.com
	>
	>
	> Regards,
	>
	> Jacques
	>
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Eric VanLydegraf [ mailto:ericv@kinzan.com
	> < mailto:ericv@kinzan.com> ]
	> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 6:14 PM
	> To: 'Pete Wenzel'; Jacques Durand
	> Cc: ebxml-iic@lists.oasis-open.org; 'pereira@ean-int.org';
	> 'pim.vandereijk@oasis-open.org'; Federico Franciosi; Thomas
Bikeev
	> Subject: RE: [ebxml-iic] RE: impl guidelines, on the
"technical" and
	> "depl oyment" sides
	>
	>
	> I'd like to say the template idea is a really good one.
	>
	> I found the EAN.UCC document had a very good outline and broke
apart the
	>
	> sections of MSH in a nice way, the parts where it stressed
	> compliance with recommended or optional portions of the ebMSG
spec
	> struck me
	> as "best practices" something we should consider inclusion of
or at
	> least
	> discussion to see if that's a good "best practices" or more
specific to
	> EAN
	> concerns. The more detailed portions were specific business
application
	> of
	> ebXML to EAN.UCC only - which I would consider is the details
filled
	> into
	> the template creating the EAN instance of the IIC standardized
template
	> doc.
	>
	> M. Wang's document has very good specific implementation
guidelines but
	> doesn't have the organization of tying the details to the more
general
	> portions of the MSH.
	>
	> So I propose a good 1st draft strategy is to consider the EAN
outline
	> with
	> the specific guidelines from M. Wang's document placed in the
	> appropriate
	> MSH outline sections and to have something like a
fill-in-the-box areas
	> for
	> business recommendations or requirements for ebXML framework
usuage in a
	>
	> particular deployment. In this way you've got the pure
technical details
	> on
	> things like defaults and design approaches, best practices
	> recommendations
	> and a placeholder for specific business requirements of a
particular
	> deployment.
	>
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Pete Wenzel [ mailto:pete@seebeyond.com
	> < mailto:pete@seebeyond.com> ]
	> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 12:40 PM
	> To: Jacques Durand
	> Cc: ebxml-iic@lists.oasis-open.org; 'pereira@ean-int.org';
	> 'pim.vandereijk@oasis-open.org'; Federico Franciosi; Thomas
Bikeev
	> Subject: Re: [ebxml-iic] RE: impl guidelines, on the
"technical" and
	> "deployment" sides
	>
	>
	> Thus spoke Jacques Durand (JDurand@fsw.fujitsu.com) on Mon,
Jun 17, 2002
	> at
	> 12:21:11PM -0700:
	> > ...
	> > As for the "deployment" side of the guidelines, a
cooperation path
	> seems
	> > to emerge with EAN.UCC,
	> > where Federico and Bolivar (EAN), will work with Pete Wenzel
	> > (CycloneCommerce), on some
	> > "deployment" (or business customization?)  template -
whatever name
	> they
	> > agree on - that should help
	> > user communities to achieve this layer of interoperability
beyonf
	> > technical MSH interaction,
	> > but before payload business content (e.g. as specified by
OAG or
	> > RosettaNet).
	> > EAN would provide a first instance of such template.
	> > Such template would also help in standardizing test cases
for this
	> > layer.
	>
	> My contact information is found below (please note correct
company
	> affiliation).  Monica Martin <mmartin@certivo.net> has also
expressed
	> her interest in helping to develop and/or review such a
template.
	>
	> --Pete
	> Pete Wenzel <pete@seebeyond.com>
	> SeeBeyond
	> Standards & Product Strategy
	> +1-626-471-6311 (US-Pacific)
	
	----------------------------------------------------------------
	To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
	manager: < http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>