RE: [wsbpel] Liaison Activity - WAS: [wsbpel] CEFACT Liaison Review

["Fletcher, Tony" <Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com>]

Title: Message

Dear Diane, Sid, David and others,

 

The bottom line for me is that I do not think we need to see liaisons as in any way competitive with each other, so I do not see a need to set 'priorities' in this respect.  If we had a large number of liaisons or they were taking a large chunk of the TC's bandwidth then that would be different, but we are by no means at that stage.

 

So I think it is a question of AND rather than OR.  I plead that those charged with doing liaison are allowed to quietly get on with the job.

 

Best Regards,

Tony                          

	Tony Fletcher Technical Advisor Choreology Ltd. 68, Lombard Street, London EC3V 9L J   UK
	Phone:	+44 (0) 870 7390076
	Mobile:	+44 (0) 7801 948219
	Fax:	+44 (0) 870 7390077
	Web:	www.choreology.com
Cohesions™
Business transaction management software for application coordination
Work: tony.fletcher@choreology.com
Home: amfletcher@iee.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Sid Askary [mailto:saskary@nuperus.com]
Sent: 24 September 2003 02:38
To: Diane Jordan
Cc: 'BPEL OASIS'
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Liaison Activity - WAS: [wsbpel] CEFACT Liaison Review

Diane,

I appreciate your unbiased approach and for clarification on the process regarding the liaison activity.  I was attempting to respond to a question posted by Frank.  For some reason, the good professor's email was not included in the chain (a common occurrence given the lack of temporal precedence in an asynchronous means of communication).  Included below for clarity:

.....
 ...and in addition, what is the difference between liason and observer?
Tx...

Regards,
Frank
.......

I was under the impression that he was curious as to our understanding of the two terms.  I simply offered mine.

Now, to the topic at hand.  Since we now know about how the process is suppose to work, can we put it to use?  I, too, would like for us to visit our liaison activity and decide as group.  Further, I have posted my concerns on a response to our good friend Tony.  I am also including them here for clarity:

-------
Dear Tony,

Thank you for your kind clarification.  I was indeed referring to the working groups - and not the specifications themselves.  I also appreciate that you offer your statement of support for our W3C liaison activity - although I did not question that activity.  Further, my general point was not so much that we would benefit from such an activity (any benefit, I hope, would be mutual to both organizations), rather, I was referring to our W3C liaison activity as building a case for what we could consider relevant - on the "degree of relevance" scale - to the task at hand.
 
I also appreciate your insight for anticipating the need for liaison activity with future BPSS activities.  And it is precisely, in light of current announcement, that our liaison activities are the topic of discussion.  
 
Additionally, you cite UN/CEFACT as representing a "wealth of experience in business matters".  Again, that organization's credentials is not the topic of discussion - I have had direct contact with many competent individuals who were/are participants and I hold them in high regard.  Rather, it is the "degree of relevance" and a matter of "priorities" given the early stages of our TC.
 
Let me use an analogy.  Imagine that we are witness to the early stages of an effort.  A group of auto manufacturers and designers have come together to specify a common description of "Engine Building" (with all due respect to colleagues at AIAG).  Other "Engine Building" organizations - maybe aircraft - would qualify as having pertinent input into the common language, as they are in the business of building engines as well. 

So, the original "car Engine" team establishes a liaison with the "aircraft Engine" group (they already have something similar going on with submarine builders who are also working on submersible "Engine Building" specification).
 
While still in the early stages of their work, at some point in near future, the "aircraft engine" manufactures decide to abandon work on "Engine Building" specification and concentrate on a different area - let's say "interior cabin" design specification.  Almost simultaneously, a group of "jet engine" designers who had worked on that original
"Aircraft Engine" specification wants to continue the work on "Engine Building" specification under a boat builders association (not to mention the fact that boat and the auto team are sister organizations belonging to a parent builder association).    

For car "Engine Building" specification team, WHICH ORGANIZATION should have priority in terms of visibility and mutual cooperation - given the problem domain and expertise and organizational affiliation:  The boat "Engine Building" spec team or the aircraft "Interior Cabin" spec team?
 
One is either in the business of creating "Engine Building" specification, or is an end user of such specification - not direct participants via liaison.  Therefore, it stands to reason that by their very nature, end user organizations are deemed less relevant for the IMMIDIATE task at hand and are lower on the chronological priority list (one would hope) of those from whom one wishes to solicit input and cooperation.   
 
When, as a TC, we are close to the finish line, we could revisit the end user direct liaison issue, perhaps, in a marketing sub-group.   To be sure, there are precedents where other organizations abandon an effort in favor of supporting another - towards the completion cycle - and generally, such gestures are delivered through the parent organization (i.e. Rosettanet in case of OASIS).  

Lastly, to further the analogy, there are still more relevant groups and consortia in the "Building Engine" specification arena (i.e. B_ig P_arts M_anufacturer I_nstitute) with which one could consider liaison activity in order to further enhance the work product.

In fact, it it common practice to re-visit these "Relations" as unforeseen events occur.  I think, as a TC, we need to revisit our liaison priorities, given the recent changes. 

 
Regards,
Sid Askary
-----