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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-jc message

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

Subject: ebXML JC Overview For Critical Assessment: JC challenge!

In hopes of adding more detail, if you have specific links in your area 
of interest, can you please provide them to me. Thanks.
--- Begin Message ---

Forgive me if this was phrased in a confusing manner.  What I want here 
are references with details that back up assertions made about 
implementations.  It's not that I don't trust you all or believe what 
you're saying;  it's that I don't want myself or anyone reading the 
pieces to *have* to take your word for it.  For example, in the JC white 
paper the ebMS section lists five deployments under the "Business 
Applicability" section.  You don't cite any references to support 
these.  I'm aware of references to support the Norwegian NIA, UK NHS, 
and GM dealer network and will cite these in my own paper, but I know of 
none with the details on the others.  I will attempt to find them, but 
if you would like to send them or resubmit your paper(s) with those 
references, please do so.

Why am I concerned about this?  I have observed there is often a 
tendency to overstate and exaggerate actual implementations of products, 
technologies, and standards   A vendor interoperability demo sponsored 
by an industry group becomes an adoption; a pilot project turns into a 
mission critical implementation;  "considering" a technology turns into 
"will implement".  I want readers to be able to review the facts as 
close to the original sources as they can, and draw their own conclusions.

Hope this clarifies what I meant.


Monica J Martin wrote:
>> rawlins: The papers you, Monica and your colleagues, have submitted 
>> are still somewhat lacking in the kind of independent, verifiable 
>> references I would most like to see, but they at least do discuss 
>> concrete cases and companies.  I will review them carefully as I 
>> prepare my own paper.
> mm1: Mike, regardless of David's tone and yours, please indicate what 
> you mean by 'independent, verifiable references.' Thanks.

Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting

--- End Message ---

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