[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ebxml-iic-interop] [ebxml-iic]F2F Details ?
Will any details about the F2F be posted on the website ? -----Original Message----- From: Monica Martin [mailto:mmartin@certivo.net] Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 2:59 PM To: Pete Wenzel; Thomas Bikeev Cc: Jacques Durand; Federico Franciosi; Bolivar Pereira; Eric VanLydegraf; Michael Wang; Monica Martin; michael.kass@nist.gov Subject: Bikeev 7/28/2002: [ebxml-iic] Deployment Template As requested in the last IIC meeting, I reviewed your deployment template, and it looks like a good start. I have made a few suggestions in the template example that was provided in early July 2002. I presume this may be discussed on Monday, 29 July 2002 in the IIC meeting. Thank you. Monica J. Martin Program Manager Drake Certivo, Inc. 208.585.5946 -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Bikeev Sent: Tue 7/2/2002 10:09 AM To: 'Pete Wenzel'; Thomas Bikeev Cc: Jacques Durand; Federico Franciosi; Bolivar Pereira; Eric VanLydegraf; Monica Martin; Michael Wang Subject: RE: [ebxml-iic] RE: impl guidelines, on the "technical" and "deployment" sides Hello, following the given example please find preliminary "template" according to the EAN.UCC requirements. This follows MSS v2.0 outline and lists the topics were additional precision for our community is required. Kind regards, Thomas -----Original Message----- From: Pete Wenzel [ mailto:pete@seebeyond.com] Sent: 27 June 2002 09:34 To: Thomas Bikeev Cc: Jacques Durand; Federico Franciosi; Bolivar Pereira; Eric VanLydegraf; Monica Martin; Michael Wang Subject: Re: [ebxml-iic] RE: impl guidelines, on the "technical" and "deployment" sides Hi, folks. I'm sorry, but it's taken me until now to find a moment to get my thoughts in order about this. I am attaching a bit of an example to illustrate what I feel might be helpful to organizations that wish to adopt ebMS and deploy their standard business processes on top of it. What I've begun to do is take the actual 2.0 (draft) specification, remove the text (being careful to leave the section numbering intact), and replace it where appropriate with questions that should be answered by the organization defining their deployment guide or profile. In general, the following are likely indicators of places where an organization might want to tighten up or extend the requirements (in ways that are still conformant to the original specification, of course): - Use of a MAY/SHOULD/RECOMMENDED/OPTIONAL keyword. - Mentions of possible scenarios or features that are beyond the scope of the specification. - Pointers to other normative sources which one might also wish to constrain in a similar fashion. So far, I've taken a quick swipe at the beginning through 2.2.2, and the end from B.3.3 on. If you agree that this is a useful exercise and would like to help, feel free to claim a segment to work on. I will continue making progress, and also merge others' changes. The EAN implementation guideline document shows that you have already done this, more or less, but recorded only the answers to the questions. That is what I would like to abstract, so that others will have an easier job of deciding what their deployment guide should look like. We could certainly insert the EAN implementation requirement "answers" to the template questions as useful examples, or format it as a "filled-in" template. If possible, the next step might be to provide explanations for why certain choices should be considered, as in many cases it is not obvious to those without a very deep understanding of all aspects of the technologies involved. --Pete Thomas Bikeev wrote: > Dear Pete, > > what would be in your opinion the requirements in such a "Deployment > Guide Template"? > Could you pleases provide me with an example. > > Kind regards, > > Thomas Bikeev > > Global eCommerce Standards > Manager > > EAN International > Rue Royale 145 > B-1000, Brussels - Belgium > www.ean-int.org > Dir. Tel. +32. (0)2. 790 1152 > Fax +32. (0)2. 227 1021 > EAN.UCC The Global Language of Business > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Wenzel [ mailto:pete@seebeyond.com > < mailto:pete@seebeyond.com> ] > Sent: 18 June 2002 19:46 > To: Jacques Durand > Cc: 'Eric VanLydegraf'; ebxml-iic@lists.oasis-open.org; > 'pereira@ean-int.org'; Federico Franciosi; Thomas Bikeev > Subject: Re: [ebxml-iic] RE: impl guidelines, on the "technical" and > "depl oyment" sides > > > Thus spoke Jacques Durand (JDurand@fsw.fujitsu.com) on Mon, Jun 17, 2002 > at 07:12:34PM -0700: > >>OK, Eric you are on the team for the "deployment template" design, >>with Monica & Pete... (and Michael Wang of course as editor, in so far >> > >>as the outcome is still assumed to be a merged document.) >> > > In my mind, these were actually separate documents, because the > targets and content are quite different: > > The Implementation Guide is aimed at software developers, to identify > and advise on various problem areas that may be encountered during > design and development of a product. It answers questions like "What > actions must an MSH take if a Business Process specifies > isNonRepudiationRequired?" or "What is the procedure for verification > of a Signature element?" > > On the other hand, the Deployment Guide Template I propose is to aid > consortia in specifying the items that need to be customized for their > particular user community; in most cases, these are software > configuration issues. Examples: "What digital signature algorithms > are allowed?", "What are the names of the Action elements, and how do > they correspond to this organization's business process definitions?" > > Both serve to enhance interoperability, but at different levels. > > --Pete > > >>So I assume the subteam for now is: >> (make sure to CC each other in this group, on this topic, >>unless you send to ebxml-iic + EAN folks, which is perfectly OK): >> >>pereira@ean-int.org >>franciosi@ean-int.org >>Bikeev@ean-int.org >>ericv@kinzan.com >>pete@seebeyond.com >>mmartin@certivo.net >>mwang@tibco.com >> >> >>Regards, >> >>Jacques >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Eric VanLydegraf [ mailto:ericv@kinzan.com >> > < mailto:ericv@kinzan.com> > >>< mailto:ericv@kinzan.com < mailto:ericv@kinzan.com> > ] >>Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 6:14 PM >>To: 'Pete Wenzel'; Jacques Durand >>Cc: ebxml-iic@lists.oasis-open.org; 'pereira@ean-int.org'; >>'pim.vandereijk@oasis-open.org'; Federico Franciosi; Thomas Bikeev >>Subject: RE: [ebxml-iic] RE: impl guidelines, on the "technical" and >>"depl oyment" sides >> >> >>I'd like to say the template idea is a really good one. >> >>I found the EAN.UCC document had a very good outline and broke apart >> > the > >>sections of MSH in a nice way, the parts where it stressed >>compliance with recommended or optional portions of the ebMSG spec >>struck me >>as "best practices" something we should consider inclusion of or at >>least >>discussion to see if that's a good "best practices" or more specific >> > to > >>EAN >>concerns. The more detailed portions were specific business >> > application > >>of >>ebXML to EAN.UCC only - which I would consider is the details filled >>into >>the template creating the EAN instance of the IIC standardized >> > template > >>doc. >> >>M. Wang's document has very good specific implementation guidelines >> > but > >>doesn't have the organization of tying the details to the more general >> > >>portions of the MSH. >> >>So I propose a good 1st draft strategy is to consider the EAN outline >>with >>the specific guidelines from M. Wang's document placed in the >>appropriate >>MSH outline sections and to have something like a fill-in-the-box >> > areas > >>for >>business recommendations or requirements for ebXML framework usuage in >> > a > >>particular deployment. In this way you've got the pure technical >> > details > >>on >>things like defaults and design approaches, best practices >>recommendations >>and a placeholder for specific business requirements of a particular >>deployment. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Pete Wenzel [ mailto:pete@seebeyond.com >> > < mailto:pete@seebeyond.com> > >>< mailto:pete@seebeyond.com < mailto:pete@seebeyond.com> > ] >>Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 12:40 PM >>To: Jacques Durand >>Cc: ebxml-iic@lists.oasis-open.org; 'pereira@ean-int.org'; >>'pim.vandereijk@oasis-open.org'; Federico Franciosi; Thomas Bikeev >>Subject: Re: [ebxml-iic] RE: impl guidelines, on the "technical" and >>"deployment" sides >> >> >>Thus spoke Jacques Durand (JDurand@fsw.fujitsu.com) on Mon, Jun 17, >> > 2002 > >>at >>12:21:11PM -0700: >> >>>... >>>As for the "deployment" side of the guidelines, a cooperation path >>> >>seems >> >>>to emerge with EAN.UCC, >>>where Federico and Bolivar (EAN), will work with Pete Wenzel >>>(CycloneCommerce), on some >>>"deployment" (or business customization?) template - whatever name >>> >>they >> >>>agree on - that should help >>>user communities to achieve this layer of interoperability beyonf >>>technical MSH interaction, >>>but before payload business content (e.g. as specified by OAG or >>>RosettaNet). >>>EAN would provide a first instance of such template. >>>Such template would also help in standardizing test cases for this >>>layer. >>> >>My contact information is found below (please note correct company >>affiliation). Monica Martin <mmartin@certivo.net> has also expressed >>her interest in helping to develop and/or review such a template. >> >>--Pete >>Pete Wenzel <pete@seebeyond.com> >>SeeBeyond >>Standards & Product Strategy >>+1-626-471-6311 (US-Pacific)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC