OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-cppa message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: BPSS (was) Approved eBTWG project teams

At 04:39 PM 8/23/01, Klaus-Dieter Naujok wrote:
>On Thursday 23 August 2001 16:34, Arvola Chan wrote:
> > Is there any plan to produce a BPSS 1.1 spec to clean up the
> > loose ends and mis-matches with the 1.0 MSG and CPP/A specs?
>It was my understanding that Karsten Riemer was working on a
>project proposal to do so. However I have not received anything
>from Karsten. maybe some ebXML-BP members can shed some light on

My own, personal view as a BPSS participant is that a separate project may 
not be necessary.  I also thought a proposal was in the works, and Karsten 
and I had talked a bit about what it might contain.  However, I note that 
in 1.0, the BPSS revision process often became the focal point for 
big-picture model changes, in parallel and unconnected sequence with other 
groups doing model-relevant work.  Note:   Inclusion of a change into the 
BPSS is the ultimate imprimatur available to the standard owner -- now 
EBTWG.  To the extent a "BPSS" group makes a modelling change without 
coordination with another BP function, ultimately the work of that other 
function is made irrelevant.  This is not a good thing, if we regard the 
domains of each approved group as genuine.  To put it a different way, 
whoever gatekeeps the BPSS will effectively become the QA arbiter for most 
other ebTWG work.

Sop I suggest that we either (1) have no BPSS group (leaving technical 
changes to editors appointed by ebTWG exec, whatever it is), or (2) approve 
a small-scale technical-changes only group project fro 1.1, which 
explicitly excludes material changes to models and objects.  In other 
words, do what CPPA is doing, and put out a good, stable 1.1 which simply 
fixes any holes in 1.0.   Let the substantive groups -- monitored 
commitments, BSI,  etc. -- work the big picture issues with their 
domain-specific experts for a while, before getting into a pitched 
discussion of what 2.0 should be.

If I not see a proposal like this in 24 hours, then unless I get a 
plurality of e-mail messages telling me this is a dumb idea, I will submit 
one to Klaus and this EBTWG list.  I don't want Dave and Jim to feel 

Regards  Jamie

James Bryce Clark
VP and General Counsel
McLure Moynihan Inc.
Chair, ABA Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic Commerce
jamie.clark@mmiec.com,  jbc@lawyer.com
1 818 597 9475   

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC