Re: Positioning with UDDI (was RE: Tactical Proposal: Split V2 work items into V2 and V3 (repost))

[David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by Lisa Carnahan
>My thought is that 
it is beyond the scope of our TC to define TModels for CPPs, BPs and the 
like.  These should be defined by the appropriate ebXML committee (i.e., 
the Big UN/CEFACT committee...(the name escapes me)).   What our 
TC  discussed on our conference call was to limit our TModel definitions to

only those that would help ebXML Registries be found and defined in a 
consistent manner.<

Lisa,

That seems to me to be probably the last we see of it!  

Not wanting to rain on the UDDI parade - I would offer - 
that since we have the TModel expertise - (a fact that will probably 
not go un-noticed when we try and punt to these other groups...) 

we should instead do drafts here of what we see these all should 
be - and then submit them to these other guys to pour holy-water on them.

Not to mention that we can probably make a good case for setting
TModels guidelines with registry for content as a task in our domain.

Just trying to push the peanut a little more effectively!  I know - I
really
don;t want to do the TModels either - but the thought of it disappearing
off - to reappear sometime later - and then not aligned to our thinking - 
worries me more than the comparitively small amount of work to
get us a sound base here...

Thanks, DW.