Re: [ebxml-cppa] CPPA notes and notice that there is No teleconference June 20 , and the next teleconference will be June 27.

[Martin Sachs <msachs@cyclonecommerce.com>]

As I recall, our main problem with partyId is that there was no 
standardized system of representing existing partyId systems by URIs.  It 
appears that ISO 6523 us a good way to address this problem, assuming that 
there aren't major partyId systems that aren't cataloged in ISO 6523.  In 
the absence of any new information or proposals, I agree that we should 
build on ISO 6523.

As to conference call frequency, I am uncertain how to proceed.  Reducing 
the negotiation conference call frequency to 1 per month (for the time 
being) did not improve attendance at the first monthly meeting. We'll see 
how it goes next week.  However, it doesn't appear that we have any urgent 
business for the next couple of months, so I agree to a vacation during 
August.

Regards,
Marty

At 09:11 AM 6/18/2003 -0700, Dale Moberg wrote:
>Hi,
>
>The partyId issue remains open and there is a need to formulate a basic
>approach to the system of IDs. I have asked for help from the ATG area
>of UN/CEFACT but have received no response back. I am leaning toward
>following the ECOM approach which maps the ISO 6523 "ICDs" to OASIS CPPA
>URI values. We would grandfather in the old URI values.
>Any initial comments on this approach?
>
>Also, BPSS 1.1 goals seem to be settling down so that only maintenance
>issues will be addressed in 1.1. If so, that would allow our CPPA
>linkages via xlink:href to portions of BPSS instances to work through
>the 1.1 schema version.
>What remains uncertain is what we should do when BPSS 2.0 emerges. What
>_may_ happen then will be removal of "BinaryCollaboration" element,
>which would impact the Xpaths we document in version CPPA 2.0. I hope
>that the ebXML JCC can consider setting guidelines on versioning,
>compatibility levels, and conservative schema modifications. Some XSLT
>transform tools may also help in smoothing transitions between versions.
>BPSS's Dave Welsh has asked us what CPPA's take is on these pending
>changes, and this is another topic for discussion June 27.
>
>Work on substitution group approach to extensibility for CPPA 2.x schema
>is mainly occuring within the cppa-ws subteam. I think it will probably
>take more time than I originally guessed to arrive at viable candidate
>proposals.
>Contributions welcome.
>
>We continue at our biweekly pace. Should we take August off?
>
>Dale Moberg
>
>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-cppa/members/leave_workgroup.php

*************************************
Martin Sachs
standards architect
Cyclone Commerce
msachs@cyclonecommerce.com