Re: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!

[David RR Webber - XML ebusiness <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Joe,

Please lets not re-open that whole argument!

We already decided that we are best equipped to make
this happen - with input from UBL, ATG, OAG, X12 and 
whoever else feels that they need to as it progresses.

Of course - clarifying the requirements upfront is
part of that process - once we are clear on the 
approach and the goals et al - then we can 
distro' those to these interested parties - and
make sure we're not missing stuff they want
covered.

Then - as the technical work progresses - we
can get input from these other groups too.
Otherwise we end up with a dime-a-dozen ways
for storing stuff in the registry as they all try and
build out their own flavours and re-invent the
wheel.

They are probably going to end up doing that
anyway  - but at least we can give everyone 
an extensible base set of common stuff - and 
a coherent way of managing their extensions.  

<trip/> Ooops - just realized that's probably 
another <high-on-the-list/> requirement and goal!!

Joe - do you want to start collating these?!?

Thanks, DW.
==========================================


Message text written by "CRAWFORD, Mark"
> 
Actually, I would say that we leave the xml binding to un/cefact atg.
Mark Crawford
Research Fellow - LMI XML Lead
W3C Advisory Committee, OASIS, RosettaNet Representative
Vice Chair - OASIS UBL TC & Chair Naming and Design Rules Subcommittee
Chair - UN/CEFACT XML Syntax Working Group
Editor - UN/CEFACT Core Components
______
Logistics Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805
(703) 917-7177   Fax (703) 917-7481 
Wireless (703) 655-4810
mcrawford@lmi.org
http://www.lmi.org
"Opportunity is what you make of it"


-----Original Message-----
From: Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
To: Farrukh Najmi <farrukh.najmi@sun.com>
CC: Nikola <nikola.stojanovic@acm.org>;
regrep-cc-review@lists.oasis-open.org
<regrep-cc-review@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wed Jun 04 15:27:18 2003
Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!

<Quote>
I was undecided between (a) and (b) earlier but your arguments make me 
agree that (a) is the way to go and that (b) is outside our charter and 
more in the purvue of UBL TC.
</Quote>

So we should create a RIM binding, and leave any definition of an XML
representation of Core Components to the UBL TC?  

<