No Subject

getting approval from the owners of the standards (CEFACT and OASIS).
     When we heard, we jointly asked the ISO central secretariat to=20
withdraw it, so that the proper process could be completed first.  They=20
did.  Perhaps the TC voted to acknowledge this, but we didn't do a press =

release because nothing happened.
     CEFACT then asked OASIS to agree to make the first submission to=20
CEFACT's own UN/ECE recommendation process in May 2003.  OASIS=20
agreed.   (This is what the press release mentions.)
     After May, the joint OASIS-CEFACT coordinating committee will turn=20
back to the question of what other approvals should be pursued, and in =
what=20
order.  ISO is still on the table and there are lots of other =
suggestions=20
from our community as well.

Regards    Jamie

Hope that helps clarify!
Kathryn

-----Original Message-----
From: Breininger, Kathryn R=20
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 12:34 PM
To: Chiusano Joseph; Monica J. Martin; farrukh.najmi@sun.com; ebXML
Regrep (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [regrep] ebXML and UN/CEFACT - Request for Clarification


No, I have not heard anymore about the ISO submission, not had I heard =
about the UN/CEFACT submission.  I will check on these and get back to =
you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 11:12 AM
To: Monica J. Martin; farrukh.najmi@sun.com; Breininger, Kathryn R
Subject: Re: [regrep] ebXML and UN/CEFACT - Request for Clarification


Kathryn,

Adding you to this thread - I had asked you a question below (regarding
ISO 154 rejection), but did not realize that this became a private
thread (I'm used to just hitting "Reply All"). I also think that this
should be discussed on the listserv, per our open policy.

Joe

Joseph Chiusano wrote:
>=20
> I think we're talking about two different things here:
>=20
> (1) Submission of ebXML specifications to UN/CEFACT
> (2) Submission of ebXML Registry specifications to ISO (?)
>=20
> My original message was regarding (1), as I don't believe there is any
> reference to ISO below.
>=20
> Since you mention ISO, I assume this is the submission of the ebXML
> Registry specifications as noted in (2) above. If so, this is the =
first
> I've heard of the rejection.
>=20
> Kathryn - would you happen to have more info on the ISO issue?
>=20
> Thanks,
> Joe
>=20
> "Monica J. Martin" wrote:
> >
> > Was submitted to ISO TC 154 and then denied.
> >
> > Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Monica. Would anyone have insight as to what "put forward" =
(first
> > > line of Ralph Berwanger's quote below) means?
> > >
> > > "Monica J. Martin" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > FYI.
> > > >
> > > > For everyone as appropriate.
> > > >
> > > > Ralph Berwanger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I understand that the following documents are being put =
forward.  I
> > > > > believe they are the same documents that were orignally put =
forward to
> > > > > TC 154.  The documents are: Technical Architecture (TA) V1.04, =
Business
> > > > > Process Specification Schema (BPSS) V1.01, Registry =
Information Model
> > > > > (RIM) V2.0, Registry services specification (RS) V2.0, ebXML =
requirements
> > > > > (REQ) V1.06, Collaboration Protocol Profile and Agreement =
specification
> > > > > (CPPA) V2.0, Message Service Specification (MS) V2.0
> > > > >
> > > > > Ralph Berwanger
> > > >
> > > > Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On the main OASIS page, there is a news item titled "OASIS and =
UN/CEFACT
> > > > > to Host ebXML Showcase at XML Europe 2003 in London" (dated =
3/27/03). In
> > > > > that article, Ray Walker (chair of the UN/CEFACT Steering =
Group) states:
> > > > >
> > > > > <Quote>
> > > > > "We are very pleased that the ebXML specifications will be =
submitted to
> > > > > the UN/CEFACT plenary immediately following the ebXML =
Showcase. This
> > > > > should pave the way for a UN recommendation to industry, =
commerce and
> > > > > governments on the use of ebXML."
> > > > > </Quote>
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone have more insight into this - i.e. which ebXML
> > > > > specifications, what it means to have them submitted to the =
UN/CEFACT
> > > > > plenary, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > > > Joe