FW: Alignment with CPA 2.0 Specification for Teleconference Friday May 9, 8 AM Pacific.

["Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Please consider the following question for tomorrow's meeting--

"What should be the specific points of alignment and what are the
degrees of freedom for BPSS and CPPA for preserving the constraint of
"loosely coupled but highly aligned"?

Other agenda: Announcements, SubTeam Reports, Progress Reports, Other
issues.

Thanks
Dale Moberg


Dial in: 877-204-8750

International +1 706-679-5113)

Pass code: 4806272648

 


-----Original Message-----
From: martin.me.roberts@bt.com [mailto:martin.me.roberts@bt.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 7:00 AM
To: UN/CEFACT TMG BPSS Editing Team
Subject: Alignment with CPA 2.0 Specification


I have spent a little time looking at the CPA 2.0 XML definitions and it
is clear that there are more points of contact with the BPSS 1.05 that
just the issue of Role.  The CPA allows for overiding of default BPSS
BusinessTransaction and BusinessTransactionActivity parameters such as
isTamperproof and TimeToPerform.  Some of the CPA 1.0 use enumerations
that are in the 1,05 specification and not in the 1.0 spec.

I would like to understand what the position on the ebXML objectives of
a set of loosely coupled but highly aligned specifications is.  I feel
that it is important to see this principle preserved for BPSS 1.1 at
least and then discuss a new base line for a new set of specs based
around changes to the underlying concepts.

Martin Roberts 
xml designer, 
BT Exact
e-mail: martin.me.roberts@bt.com 
tel: +44(0) 1473 609785  clickdial
fax: +44(0) 1473 609834
Intranet Site :http://twiki.btlabs.bt.co.uk/twiki


---
You are currently subscribed to the uncefact-tmg-bpss listserve. To
unsubscribe send an email to lyris@listman.disa.org with the following
subject: Unsubscribe uncefact-tmg-bpss 
If you do not receive confirmation of your unsubscribe request 
please notify postmaster@disa.org to report the problem.