[ebxml-jc] OASIS ebXML JC Teleconference Notes - July 17

["Brian S. Hayes" <brian.hayes@UCLAlumni.net>]

Agenda
======
+ ebXML Compatibility Matrix 
+ Maintenance of ebXML Standards beyond 2002 
+ JTLT Candidates/Nominations
+ MSH and BSI Interface 

Attendees: 
   Dale Moberg, Brian Hayes, Collean Evans, Karl Best, Ian Jones,
Jacques Durand, Kathryn Breininger, John Duker


= ebXML Compatibility Matrix = 

   Everyone should be aware that there was an agreement to establish a
ebXML Standards compatibility matrix. This is an *intended*
compatibility claim (since there is no requirement that TCs validate the
compatibility prior to making the claim or finalizing the document).

==> Action: Every ebXML team send to Apu (Arijit Sengupta
<arijit.sengupta@oracle.com>) the compatibility claim for each of our
specifications.  The claim should include claims/dependencies on other
ebXML standards and other important standards, if applicable, such as
SOAP.  Make statements like, "Should work with versions #.# and #.# of
standard xyz, ..." and "Dependent on ..."  If the specification can work
with previous versions of the same specification, be sure to make such
claims if known.

   There an issue is that we currently do have not validation process
within the TCs.  We assume that the OASIS IIC can provide validation of
claims.
   The specifications should also have a compatibility section in the
documents that describe or assert which standards that the specification
is compatible with and dependent on.
   We also briefly discussed issues with ebXML registry and the
bootstrap process of initiating the first connection to the matrix.


= Maintenance of ebXML Standards beyond 2002 = 

   Does anyone have ideas on how the ebXML standards will be maintained
beyond 2002.
   Ian has sent a post to the Messaging list about future work.  There
have been three offers to be editor!  It appears that Messaging will go
on for another year.
   Kathryn expects the Registry group to continue for another year.
   Jacques expects the IIC to continue for another year.  The IIC could
use some help from the other TCs.
   Dale has a target date for CPA Negotiation for the end of the year.
There are research projects having to do with Web Services and OASIS
BTP.  Otherwise, the CPPA team has yet to decide to continue work beyond
the completion of the CPA Negotiation work.  It may be possible for
maintenance changes to be handled by other TCs and project teams (e.g.
BPSS) that may be making changing to their specifications that may
impact the CPPA specification.
   Are there any OASIS procedures for handling maintence of
specifications? ==> If the orginal TC is no longer operating, some TC
would need to be chartered to handle the maintenance.  Note that it is
the intent of OASIS to submit the ebXML specifications to ISO after a TC
says that a specification has sufficiently matured (reached what appears
to be the "final" version).


= JTLT Candidates/Nominations = 

  Candidates should have a breadth of experience in ebXML related
specifications and architecture.
  Dale nominates Marty Sachs.
  ==> Please send Karl your nominations.


= MSH and BSI Interface = 

  John Duker from UCC was present for this discussion.
  UCC has seen a challenge in setting up ebXML systems -- in particular,
the interface and integrating with back-end systems.  They are proposing
to look into a solution based on OAG BOD control fields (e.g. providing
Send-To information in the payload's control fields).  This way the
BSI/MSH essentially gets a single chunk of data  -- e.g. envelope +
business document.  The envelope would be logically addressed (e.g. with
a DUNS number).
  A back-end systems creates a business document in an internal data
format, and knows where it is to be sent to and who it is coming from.
This information then goes to a "translator" that then creates a
properly formatted message (e.g. specific XML dialect).  The message is
then handed of to a "telecom" server that determines actual destination
addresses and sends message.
  This control information could become a candidate for a core
component.
  John and Ian have agreed to collaborate.  Other people are encouraged
to participate.  Recommend contacting someone from eBTWG and TMWG since
they may have a good understanding what the logical model for this.
Also need to see what UBL might be doing in this area.

==> Action: Dale, John, Ian and others should have a teleconference to
start addressing this issue.


= Reminder on Messaging Specification = 

  Remind your voting representative for you company to send it a vote on
the Messaging Specification.


Best regards,
Brian Hayes
Collaborative Domain