Re: BPSS (was) Approved eBTWG project teams

[Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>]

Both the ebxml-msg and ebxml-cppa TCs called for public comments
and allowed for a feedback period of the order 3 weeks to a month.

Currently, there is a good deal of confusion between the notion of
business signals defined in the BPSS spec and the notion of
DeliveryReceipt defined in the MSG spec. The RosettaNet architecture
team is also finding a number of issues in using BPSS to describe
RNIF 2.0 compliant PIPs.

I suspect more synchronization issues w.r.t to the 1.1 versions of
the MSG and CPPA specs will arise.

Cheers,
-Arvola

-----Original Message-----
From: Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt) <kkanaskie@lucent.com>
To: 'Klaus-Dieter Naujok' <knaujok@home.com>; ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org
<ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org>
Cc: ebxml-bp@ebxml.org <ebxml-bp@ebxml.org>; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
<ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>; karsten.riemer@east.sun.com
<karsten.riemer@east.sun.com>; plevine@telcordia.com <plevine@telcordia.com>
Date: Friday, August 24, 2001 11:52 AM
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>