OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-iic message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: [ebxml-iic] IIC minutes, June 17

Title: EAN.UCC TRP guidelines
Here is the minutes of today's meeting.
If I forgot anyone on the attendees list, let me know.
You may search for the "ActionItem:" patterns in the document: they tag interesting info...
Minutes of IIC telecon June 17th, 2002

Host: Oracle (Arijit Sengupta )
Time: Monday 17 june, 10am Pacific
Dial in 1-877-302-8255
Intl: 303-928-2609


Mike Kass (NIST)
Jaques Durand (Fujitsu)
Monica Martin (Drake Certivo)
Pete Wenzel (SeeBeyond)
Jeff Turpin (CycloneCommerce)
Eric Van Lydegraf (Kinzan)
Arijit Sengupta (Oracle)
Yan Guo (webMethods)

Rik Drummond (DGI)
Federico Franciosi (EAN)
Bolivar Pereira (EAN)

Steve Yung (Sun)
Matt McKenzie (XMLG)
Prakash Sinha (IONA)
Michael Wang (TIBCO)


1. Logistic issues: mailing sublists, next f-2-f 
(Vancouver or other, end August), next OAG meeting.
2. Status of work: 
- MS conformance (status of mark-ups for reqs, suite, cases, steps)
(submission to MS TC)
- MS Interoperability (DGI tests integration?)
- the test framework (conformance + interop? how general beyond MS?)
3. Implementation Guidelines, (and EAN impl guidelines)
4. Other target specifications (RegRep, BPSS, CPPA) 


1- Logistic issues.

- proposal for new mailing sublists (from Matt): 
|_ ebxml-iic-framework (conformance and interop framework, for all specs) 
|_ ebxml-iic-conform (conformance specific discussion, for all specs) 
|_ ebxml-iic-interop (interoperability specific discussion, for all specs) 
|_ ebxml-iic-comments (venue for test requirement comments to be sent 
Nobody is opposed to this. Motion adopted.
ActionItem: Jacques will then ask for the creation of these
lists. Old ones would probably be still around, with a notice posted.
 (it is advised that everyone subscribes to all: you can always unsubscribe
when the ratio trafic/value becomes too high for anyone of the lists...)

- Next f-2-f: sometime second half of August. we have three options:
(a) Vancouver, hosted by XMLGlobal (could be maybe August 22-23, to not overlap 
with Boston XML, unless no-one plans to attend this.)
(b) Boston, hosted by OASIS, joined with XML Web Services One conference (August 26-30),
(c) Bay Area.
(d) Detroit, Aug 13th-14th combined with OAG meeting.
The main objective is last review of MS test material, and also
Test Framework, before submission to OASIS.
We need to decide f-2-f by end of June. We'll proceed with a poll for preferences.
ActionItem: everyone should be ready to define their preferences / impossibilities.
Poll will follow.

2. Status of work: 

- MS conformance: (Mike, Matt) Released the latest version of Test Requirements
for all levels of MS spec. Each test req item mentions the level of test coverage
we intend to provide with test framework (full, partial, none).
We need thorough review, before we submit to Messaging TC. 
For now, Monica and Jacques have reviewed (see emails on iic-msg). 
Mike will update based on these. Mike is also working on Test Cases that match 
these test reqs.
ActionItem: Rik Drummond volunteers to verify the "specification coverage", 
that is, all MUST and SHALL keywords in spec have corresponding Test Requirements.
Objective: the list of test reqs should represent an acceptable definition of 
conformance, and for this the MS TC is the authority. How many (and how much) 
of these tests can effectively be implemented in our framework, is the IIC
decision - provided we are clear about what is not verified (caveat).

- MS Interoperability: Steve updated latest draft (Prakash), defining
details of Test Cases based on the latest test architecture (framework),
and also addressing (some) DGI tests.
We need to review. We still need to iterate on how we integrate DGI tests.
Some DGI tests also involve practices that are beyond spec, but may require
extra-features from MSH? (see DGI Test G with nested message.)
ActionItem: Jacques will review and pass to Rik D.
Rik Drummond agreed that push for more automation is desirable.
Also, there should be "interoperability profiles",
based on interoperation modes that reflect business requirements.
For example, with/without security, HTTP vs. SMTP, advanced features vs core.
Rik mentioned that CPP content could be a basis to define such profiles, yet
there should not be too many of these.
ActionItem: Rik will help define interop profiles, based on observed business reqs.
Rik mentioned other factors threatening interoperability: Internet is simply
not 100% interoperable (e.g. mail attachments, HTTP1.1 not supported equally 
by browsers.)

- Test Framework: No update since last posting from Jacques. 
ActionItem: Jacques will update, based on (1) Monica comments, and (2) on
more precise Service/Actions needed for MS interope testing, and (3)
test case description material from Mike/Matt.

- By July 8th, we submit to IIC TC the three test specifications: 
(1) ebXML Test Framework, (2) MS COnformance Test Suite, (3) MS Interoperability Test Suite.

3. Implementation Guidelines.

- EAN International (www.ean-int.org, the European equivalent of UCC)
is endorsing ebXML, and have drafted  an EAN ebXML TRP implementation guidelines.
A few of us reviewed it. It appears that implementation, for EAN, is more about usage, 
and deployment guidelines for an ebXML MSH in an eBusiness context. 
- Federico Franciosi and Bolivar Pereira from EAN explained EAN objectives
and nature of ebXML adoption. EAN has been gathering business requirements from
a broad European user community, especially in supply-chain industry.
EAN has written a "Methodology guidelines" doc, recommending mapping from UML
into XML (e.g. SWIFT) and XML payloads, have worked with ebXML Core COmponents, 
and cooperating with UN/CEFACT. Other specs of interest: ebXML RegRep and CPP/A (being
considered as parts of the eB architecture of UN/CEFACT). On MS side, some
1.0 MS implementation has been tested, but moving to 2.0.
EAN is establishing best practices in using eB standards, and the interest 
in IIC work and especially interoperability, is because their users need a 
full interoperability solution, from protocols to business level.
- Monica mentioned that a combination of both IIC - EAN guidelines may be of 
interest to those EAN users who plan to implement.
- The EAN document illustrates the need for defining business conventions and
practices for using ebXML Messaging (e.g. mesg header content), that is definitely 
above MS spec, but before specific business scenarios (which specify message payload 
and collaborations). So there seems to be some complementarity here, and some value 
in going one step further.
ActionItem: Pete W. proposed to approach the possible integration of 
such deployment guidelines, with a notion of template. EAN would provide
the first instance of such template. Other user communities could provide
their own "deployment guidelines", yet would be well advised to be aware
of others' practices. EAN.{Federico, Bolivar, Thomas Bikeev}, and IIC.{Monica, Pete} 
will work on such templates.
- We still nee to work at our "core" impl guidelines.
ActionItem: Jeff will contact his developers for some input to the technical 
impl guidelines. Everyone who belongs to an implementator organization welcome 
to do same (see the "survey" list sent out.)

4. Other specifications.

- RegRep: Mike is monitoring the work done on RegRep test requirements,
and make sure that our test case language can apply there too.
- Test Framework will take into account reqs for other specs, as it
should not be MS-specific, and ultimately support harnessing of
other specs' implementations.


- Next teleconference planned for Monday, July 1st, 10am Pacific time.

Jacques Durand
ebXML IIC chair

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC