[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [egov] [Q] ebXML/Web Services sub-committee
Zachary Alexander wrote: > > I am confused about the work break down for the sub-committees: > 1. Who would handle marketing questions? > 2. Who would handle outreach questions? Good call. I think we should have an Outreach/Marketing subcommittee. Every other OASIS TC I have been involved with has had to set one up. > 3. Are there any provisions to insure that SME concerns are addressed? I assumed the Requirements group is going to handle this. Best Practices may be able to take a look at the requirements from a SME point of view. > 4. How are regional issues identified and addressed? We had discussed the scope of Language Translation extending to localization, but I'm not sure if it was ever approved. > 5. Who would handle questions of building an e-Gov Ontology? I would expect Requirements to do this. I expect the Requirements subcommittee may eventually spin off additional subcommittees. > 6. How will existing XML vocabularies be identified for consideration? Again, I would expect Requirements to initially handle this (although this is clearly a Best Practice in terms of execution). > 7. Who would build reference implementations? Depends on what is being built. I would expect some of this to be handled by other OASIS TCs (particularly ebXML Implement). This could also be handled by a Requirements "sub-subcommittee". > 8. Would there be any sub-committee concerned with acquiring funds or > teaming with other organizations to build reference implementations? > Per the minutes (per liaisons) : "JB felt it was too early and we should determine this later" > IMHO, ebXML has the potential to provide tremendous benefits for Gov > organizations and their constituents. But, ebXML has suffered from a “If you > build it they will come” mentality. I agree - we need to remain clearly focused here to avoid the risk of getting distracted. This is an e-Gov TC, not an ebXML initiative. We should use ebXML only when (if) appropriate. > Is this just another standards effort or an technology advocacy effort? In my personal opinion/hope, this TC is a best practices initiative that happens to use technology. The technology should only be an enabler (a tool, if you will). Technology should not be the objective of this group. People interested in building ebXML infrastructures will be happier if they go join ebXML Implement or some other technology-centric TC. > I apologize if I my questions are redundant. But I can’t show my clients > these documents and make the case there will be anything but potential > long-term benefits. My clients need results in the short-term. They need > quick wins to build momentum. > Wonderful. This is the reason I'm excited about this group - I'm not interested in a 3-5 year view of what might be possible. As Thomas Edison once said, "there are no rules here - we're trying to accomplish something". Happy holidays everyone. John Evdemon Senior Associate Digital Strategies Booz | Allen | Hamilton
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC