[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: BPSS (was) Approved eBTWG project teams
Jamie's number (2) approach "approve a small-scale technical-changes only group project fro 1.1, which explicitly excludes material changes to models and objects." so that "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." really makes the most logical sense. That's where my vote goes. -Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt) [mailto:kkanaskie@lucent.com] > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 11:52 AM > To: 'Klaus-Dieter Naujok'; ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org > Cc: ebxml-bp@ebxml.org; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org; > karsten.riemer@east.sun.com; plevine@telcordia.com > Subject: RE: BPSS (was) Approved eBTWG project teams > > > Klaus, > > Either works for me. From my view there are two issues: > 1. An updated Schema XSD to reflect changes in the in final > TR version. The > ebXML web site still has an earlier version that has since > been corrected > and posted to the BPSS list. > 2. Changes to resolve the minor ambiguities in the spec with > respect to the > use of isPositiveResponse. > > I think both could be considered editorial. > > Best Regards, > ________________________________________________________________ > Kurt Kanaskie > Lucent Technologies > kkanaskie@lucent.com > (610) 778-1069 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Klaus-Dieter Naujok [mailto:knaujok@home.com] > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 2:36 PM > To: ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org > Cc: ebxml-bp@ebxml.org; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org; > karsten.riemer@east.sun.com; plevine@telcordia.com > Subject: Re: BPSS (was) Approved eBTWG project teams > > On Friday 24 August 2001 11:24, James Bryce Clark wrote: > > > So 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. > > Jamie, > > Thanks for your recap on this topic. I would support option 2 as > being a valid one with the conditions identified by you. > > Regards, > > Klaus > > -- > Klaus-Dieter Naujok UN/CEFACT/eBTWG & TMWG Chair > IONA Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, Chief Scientific Officer > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.ebtwg.org/ob/adm.pl> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC