Clarifications from F2F

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

While reading our F2F minutes, I pulled out some points that (IMHO) we
perhaps did not have enough time to fully discuss at our F2F, and thus
they appear more unresolved than resolved.

Here they are - should we create separate e-mail threads for each of
these? Or hold off on discussing them until our first call?

(1) What are we chartered to deliver?

(2) What is the scope of the term "architecture" for us?

- Team Summary: We should capture the business requirements view for the
architecture and be able to map them to an architectural blueprint.

(3) Who is our audience? (NOTE: David Webber provided some suggestions
on the listserv prior to our F2F)

(4) How to handle convergence with ebXML and WS-*?

(5) Is the "eb" in ebSOA used on purpose to focus on SOA from an ebXML
perspective? 

- Duane commented that ebSOA IS NOT ebXML SOA, rather e-business SOA.
Important legal distinction.
- Farrukh: this architecture should not focus on "eb", but enough to get
enterprises connected.

(6) Suggested outcome: Define a set of patterns/blueprints that map to
individual specifications and their interactions.

(7) Requirements: Duane commented that our requirements are documented
in the ebXML 1.06 requirements document. (is this a closed issue? more
discussion required?)

-- 
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz | Allen | Hamilton