[ebxml-jc] FW: [Fwd: Architecture Draft candidate for release toPlenary]

["Karl F. Best" <karl.best@oasis-open.org>]

JC members:

Have you had the chance yet to review the attached document? There may
be some implications for the OASIS ebXML specs. It would be a good
things if you could get your comments back to Duane (and CC the rest of
the JC) in the next few days.

</karl>
=================================================================
Karl F. Best
OASIS - Director, Technical Operations
+1 978.667.5115 x206
karl.best@oasis-open.org  http://www.oasis-open.org


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Architecture Draft candidate for release to Plenary
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 09:55:33 -0700
From: Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>
To: "ebtwg-eba@lists.ebtwg.org" <ebtwg-eba@lists.ebtwg.org>

All:

The attached document, v 0.50 of the UN/CEFACT ebTWG architecture, has
been approved during the last Conference Call to be submitted to this
group as a Candidate for Release to the plenary.  Please review the
instructions, the document and the change log for further clarification.

You are being asked to vote on whether or not you believe this document
should be submitted to the plenary for a UN/CEFACT Review and comment
period.  The voting deadline is June 17 and the close of business
Pacific Standard Time.

If the vote is "YES",  this document will be submitted to the UN/CEFACT
plenary as a call for comments and general review.

In the alternative,  this document will be given back to the editors,
with comments and instructions to revise before submitting again.

General Considerations:

1. Unless you have a strong objection to a very fundamental aspect of
this document, please vote yes.  All smaller comments and changes can be
done during the next review cycle by the plenary.  Please do not hold up
this document for things like typos, word-smithing etc.

2. If there is a fundamental aspect of this architecture that you
disagree with,  please document it, including reasons why you disagree
and a suggested alternative and submit them to this listserve.  Your
"NO" vote will be recorded and you MUST attend the next conference call
to discuss your positions.

3. I think that we (the team) have doen a great job of getting this
document to where it is and we should request comments from a larger
audience.  I hope that in two weeks we will all be voting yes.   If you
have some comments and changes,  you can enter them at the same time as
everybody else during the plenary review cycle.  That review cycle lasts
for two months.

Thank you to all who hae worked so hard on getting this specification to
the point it is at.

Remember - please read the "PLEASEREADEME.txt" before starting your
comments.

Thank you all.

Duane Nickull

--
VP Strategic Relations,
Technologies Evangelist
XML Global Technologies
****************************
ebXML software downloads - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/

Attachment: eBTWG_Architecture_v0.50.doc
Description: MS-Word document

Attachment: ChangeLog_0.49-0.50.xls
Description: application/msexcel

Before voting on whether to release the Architecture v 0.49 specification to the UN/CEFACT Plenary,  please consider the following:

1. If your comments are editorial in nature, and not show stopper material,  please vote "Yes" and enter your comments at the same time the general plenary comments on the document.

2.  If you comments are of typographical nature,  please vote "Yes" and enter your comments at the same time the general plenary comments on the document.

3.  Only if your comments are of major nature and you feel that the current document does not capture the essence of what the groups has discussed Face to Face,  should you vote "No" and elect to internally revise the document once more before it goes to a wider audience.

The period for voting, assuming the teleconference call tomorrow votes to call for an internal vote, are as follows:

Tuesday June 4, 2002 - voting opens
Tuesday June 17, 2002 - voting closes.

Please vote either "Yes" - indicating you believe this document should go out to the plenary or "No" indicating that the document still needs more internal revision.  If voting "No"  please provide a spreadsheet with the line number nd comments on the objectionable content.

Please also bear the following in mind:

1.  This is NOT an ebXML architecture.  This is a superset of the ebXML architecture that can be used for XML and non-XML payloads.

2.  We make use of generic terms in normative sections of the document such as "Trading Partner Profile" insted of "CPP".  We then suggest the ebXML work in non-normative implemention sections.

3.  IF you vote "Yes", you still have 2 - two month periods to enter comments.  This is not your last chance to enter comments.